AE aU ed alte 
api | i Fy ql Ha be r 
all Ps A | uM 

, | | : | 7 i , | bi ei 7 i i 4 

u Mh ; ull h Ly : ie if I Gi dig 

TN aA m ,! ( i / 4 ~ 
CVO \, rey, hy f Hy fi | 

‘( os 


vm i ; | || 4 | q 
Wy ie | Y i » i i ih P's Ne ys ‘ < . 


= SS 


( ' Hh i 4 i 
ESSN ey 
i 
> 


Wo) IN, 
‘ ly dl < 
AF is ee 
TOON 6 gin ” Ny 
ERS ICY ; SN ca 
: eee a a py 2 


7 ! \ Ae SINE: yy a a i 
I Kees ‘ eS , 
Halal ne : 

i gy ' ip \ i 
vy % a _ 


i ‘ g 
Y ie 


nth 

rity Nau 
WA CAIAAULAAUA A 
Wi UN i i rh Ml i 


Font 


i) 
i ' 
; | yi! i i 
Mad wan | i! H \\ 
i Hit it! Mh, Hi ii i | I 
H Waly i} Wi \ | 
| Aha A el ih AA 
. wth ull I 
i l eA MIA HT i 
iH | ml AON AE 
Hi Nf H ll 
i | Mie | 


ee 
——— 


—— SS 


at 
i 


tad 
ws 
: x 


vis gave 
iis Pete Paes: 


gr 
ize 
< 


8 
ae 
#9 


is 


ral 
» 
ihe, 
» 


THE HEBREW WIFE: 


OR 
# 


THE LAW OF MARRIAGE 


EXAMINED IN RELATION TO 


a 
> ; 


THE LAWFULNESS OF POLYGAMY 


AND TO THE EXTENT 


OF 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 


BY S. E. DWIGHT. | 


~ 


& 


NEW-YORK: 


LEAVITT, LORD & CO., 180, BROADWAY. 


BOSTON :—-CROCKER & BREWSTER. 


ee eee eee eneenes 


Entered, according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1836, 
BY LEAVITT, LORD & CO. 


In the Clerk’s Office for the Southern District of New-York. 


See ie Sa eee 
H. LUDWIG, PRINTER, 


72, Vesey-street, fe 4 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


SomE years since, in consequence of a Complaint, 
made in due form of law, and substantiated by satisfac- 
tory evidence, it became the author’s official duty to in- 
stitute a prosecution for an Incestuous marriage. On 
examining the Statute-book, however, the degree of 
Affinity between the parties was discovered to be more 
remote, than in other cases that had been legalized. 
This led him to investigate the Scriptural Law of In- 
cest, with a determination not to proceed in the prose- 
cution, unless the given marriage was clearly prohibited 
in that Law. 'The investigation was found to involve 
questions of a novel complexion, not even stated in 
books; and proved more difficult and laborious than 
was anticipated. It was made therefore pen in hand. 
In the course of it, nothing then within his knowledge, 
whether commentary or controversy, was overlooked ; 
and the reasonings of two of the ablest Jurists of the 
country, thrown directly in his way, and presenting all 
the arguments for the lawfulness of the marriage in 
question and of others like it, were necessarily examined. 
The result of the investigation, as it was then written, 
with a few corrections and additions, may be seen in the 
following pages.—T he individual was prosecuted, and 


lv ADVERTISEMENT. 


the offence proved; but the Court, instead of passing 
sentence, adjourned the case, that he might petition the 
Legislature for an alteration of the statute. He did so; 
the section forbidding the given marriage was repealed ; 
and the prosecution, of course, fell through.—Those 
parts of the work, which here and there a reader may 
possibly regard as scarcely grave enough for the sub- 
ject, were purposely introduced by the author to relieve 
the tedium of dry discussion; and he hopes that the 
clergy, should they honour his lucubrations with a pe- 
rusal, will kindly remember that they were the “ Hore 
Biblice of 


A LAWYER. 


# 


THE 


HEBREW WIFE: 


OR 
THE SCRIP*SU RAL LA W's 
OF 


POLYGAMY AND INCEST. 


INTRODUCTION. 


No one of the marriages, heretofore regarded as incese 
tuous, has found so numerous, or so warm advocates, as 
that with a Wife's sister. 'Those of the Clergy, particu- 
larly, who have either contracted, or purposed to contract, 
this marriage, feeling uneasy, until they could satisfy 
others of its lawfulness, as fully as they hoped they had 
satisfied themselves, have usually come outin self-defence, 
before they were attacked. 'The minor positions taken 
by the combatants, fighting, as they have usually 
done in this partizan warfare, each one for himself, 
have indeed been various; but the strong-hold which 
they have ultimately resorted to, when driven from the 
outposts, has been in every case, an intrenchment behind 
that “debatable” Section of the Law of incest, Leviticus 
xviii. 18, ‘Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to 
vex her, to uncover her nakedness beside the other, in 
her life-time.” Here some of them, satified with feeling 
themselves secure, have merely stood on the defensive ; 


2 INTRODUCTION. 


while others, indignant at having been attacked, have 
sallied forth to batter down the whole Law of incest. 

The language of this Section—“ Neither shalt thou 
take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her na- 
kedness beside the other, in her life-¢ime”—has received 
thetwo following constructions : 

1. Neither shalt thou take one wife to another, to vex 
her, in her life-time : 

2. Neither shalt thou take a second wife, who is the 
sister of thy first wife to vex her in her life-¢ime ; al- 
though thou mayest take one who is not her sister, as 
that will not vex her; and after her death, her sister 
also. 

As these two constructions are directly contradictory : 
the first involving an express prohibition of Polygamy ; 
and the second containing an express permission of it, 
as well as of the marriage with the sister of a deceased 
wife: it is obvious, if Polygamy was lawful, under the 
Old Dispensation, that the First construction is unsound ; 
and, if it was not lawful, that the Second construction 
must be given up. Hence, in order to decide which of 
the two is the correct construction, we must first deter- 
mine, whether Polygamy under the Old Dispensation was 
lawful or not. In this way the Lawfulness of Polygamy 
becomes necessarily connected with an investigation of 
the Law of incest; and, to prevent it from rising up in 
the shape of an objection hereafter, it should be previ- 
ously examined. If, as the result of such an examina- 
tion, it shall appear that Polygamy was not lawful ; it 
will not be difficult to ascertain the exact limits of the 
Scriptural Law of incest. 


& 


ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


Potyeamyis That state, in which a Man has two or 
more wives, or a Woman has two or more husbands, at 
the same time. The question to be answered is this, 

Was Polygamy lawful under the Old Dispensation ? 
As the Old Dispensation embraced two periods—the Pa- 
triarchal, and the Levitical—this inquiry naturally re- 
solves itself into two others: 1. Was Polygamy law- 
ful to the Patriarchs? 2. Was Polygamy lawful 
under the Levitical Code? Each of these questions 
claims, and shall receive, a distinct answer. 

I. Was Polygamy lawful to the Patriarchs ? 

It will be conceded by all, that, under the Patriarchal 
Dispensation, there is no express permission of Poly- 
gamy, on record. Previous to the promulgation of the 
Levitical Code, there is no law or dictum relating even 
remotely to the subject, except the GREAT ORIGINAL 
LAW OF MARRIAGE, found in Genesis, ii. 24, “ There- 
fore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall 
cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.” ‘The 
import of this J.aw will be sought hereafter. It is suffi- 
cient to remark, here, that it certainly does not contain 
a permission of Polygamy. 

If, then, it can be shown that Polygamy was law- 
ful to the Patriarchs, the evidence must be derived from 
their Practice. In examining this point, however, we 
must distinctly remember, that the question before us is 
not, Whether Polygamy was permitied, by the customs 
or laws of the tribes, among whom the Patriarchs 

lived? but, Whether Polygamy was permitted by the 


at 


4 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


Law of God 2—The best human laws authorize, and 
the best men sanction, conduct, which is directly pro- 
hibited by the Divine law. 'To argue what the Law of 
God is, from the Practice of men, even of the best men, 
seems, therefore, a hazardous course, in any case; but 
especially in the case in question. None of the Patri- 
archs lived in a regular state of society, governed by es- 
tablished laws ; but each was the head of his clan—a 
petty chieftain, acknowledging no superior. ‘The sur- 
rounding chieftains, also, as well as the tribes whom 
they governed, all practised Polygamy. With these 
things in view, let us see what the Practice of the Patri- 
archs actually was, on this subject, both before and after 
the Deluge. 

1. Adam was placed in a situation, in which Polyga- 
my was neither lawful, nor possible. 

2. Noone of the Antediluvian Patriarchs, from Adam 
to Noah, in the line of Seth, is mentioned as a polyga- 
mist. 

3. The same is true of Noah and his three sons. 

A. The first polygamist on record was Lamech, the 
fifth in lineal descent from Cain; and, as the Introduc- 
tion of Polygamy into this world is an important event, 
we will examine the account given of itby Moses. The 
passage containing it is found in Genesis, iv. 19,23 and 
24. As the Hebrew manuscripts have no Notes of inter- 
rogation, the original is equally susceptible of the two 
following translations : 

1st. “ And Lamech took unto him two wives, Adah 
and Zillah. And Lamech said unto his wives, ‘Adah 
and Zillah, hear my voice ; ye wives of Lamech, hearken 
unto my speech: For I have slain aman to my wound- 
ing, and a young man to my hurt. If Cain shall be 
avenged seven fold, truly Lamech, seventy and sever 
fold.” 'This is the common version : 


ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 5 


2d. “And Lamech took unto him two wives, Adah and 
Zillah. And Lamech said unto his wives, ‘Adah and 
Zillah, hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken 
unto my speech. . Have I slain a man to my wounding, 
or a young man tomy hurt? If Cain shall be avenged 
seven fold, truly Lamech seventy and seven fold.” 

If we take the former version as the correct one, then 
the first polygamist was a murderer ; and when his two 
Wives expressed their apprehensions lest vengeance 
should fall upon him for his crime, he consoles them with 
the reflection, that God had threatened seven fold ven- 
geance on any one who should kill Cain. But this ab- 
rupt and most incongruous version is obviously errone- 
ous. Moses does not intimate that Lamech had been 
guilty of murder, nor that his wives had any apprehen- 
sion on account of it. Nor, if Lamech had been guilty 
of murder, would he have had any right to suppose that 
God would inflict on the man, who should kill him, 
eleven times as exemplary vengeance, as on the slayer of 
Cain. 'The only act charged on Lamech by the histo- 
rian, is his Polygamy; and when his two wives ex 
pressed their apprehensions, lest, for this, some one 
_ would kill him, he might well reply, “ Adah and Zillah, 
hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken to my 
speech. Have I slain a man to my wounding, or a 
young man to my hurt? If God shall avenge Cain 
seven fold, truly Lamech seventy and seven fold.” His 
crime then, obviously, was his Polygamy. In either 
case, however, Polygamy was introduced into the world 
under very bad auspices. 

5. The second and only remaining account of Polyga- 
my before the Deluge is found in Gen. vi. 1—7, “ And it 
came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of 


the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the 
te 


6 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


soiis of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair, 
and they took them wives of all whom they chose. 
And the Lord said, ‘My spirit shall not always strive 
with man.’ There were giants in the earth, in those 
days; and also after that, when the sons of God came 
in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children 
unto them, the same became mighty men, which were 
of old, men of renown. And God saw that the wick- 
edness of man was great on the earth, and that every 
imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil 
continually; and it repented the Lord that he had 
made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 
And the Lord said, I will destroy man, whom I have 
created, from the face of the earth.”—'The fact, that 
Polygamy became general, or that men took them 
wives of all whom they chose, is here obviously assigned 
as the cause of that universal corruption and violence, 
which occasioned the Deluge. These are the only two 
examples of Antediluvian Polygamy. 

6. After the Deluge, no mention is made of the prac- 
tice of Polygamy among the descendents of Ham or 
Japhet, though their genealogies are given; nor had 
any of them such a number of children, as to indicate 
his possession of several wives. 

7. No example of polygamy is mentioned in the ten 
successive patriarchs in the line of Shem, from Shem to 
Terah the father of Abraham; nor does the number of 
their children lead us to suppose that either of them had 
more than one wife. 7 

8. Nahor, Abraham’s brother had a-concubine ; but 
we are not told, whether during the life of his wife, or 
after her death. 

9. Abraham had one wife, Sarah, who had no chil- 
dren. “And Sarah said unto Abraham, ‘I pray thee 


a ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 7 


go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain chil- 
dren by her’” This connection was no part of Abra- 
ham’s plan of life. It was occasioned by Sarah’s strong 
desire to have children, whom she could call her own. 
It was temporary intercourse with a bondwoman ; and 
ceased as soon as Hagar had conceived. 'The issue, as 
Paul tells us, was not legitimate, or entitled to inherit 
the property of Abraham. That Abraham—himself 
originally an idolater, and living in the midst of idola- 
ters, who not only practised polygamy, but every other 
species of impurity—in despair also of any issue from 
Sarah, should have had views of marriage so far loose 
and incorrect, as to yield to such a proposal from his 
wife, is not surprising ; but it furnishes no evidence of 


the lawfulness of Polygamy. Abraham’s marriage with. 


Keturah did not occur until seven years after the death 
of Sarah. If this extemporaneous connection of Abra- 
ham with Hagar proves the lawfulness of any thing, it 
proves merely that a husband who was childless might 
lawfully, with the consent of his wife, connect himself 
temporarily with his female slave; but obviously, this is 
not Polygamy. 

10. Isaac had but one wife. 

11. Esau, “that profane person,” had three wives. 
“And Esau said in his heart, ‘The days of mourning 
for my father are at hand; then will I slay my bro- 
ther Jacob.’” 

12. Jacob, while in the family of Laban, lived among 
idolaters, who practised polygamy. Laban and his 
children were idolaters, yet polygamy was no part of Ja- 
cob’s plan of life. Leah was put upon him by a fraud, to 
which he must submit, or hazard the loss of Rachel. 
He likewise told his father several direct falsehoods, and 
with extreme cruelty defrauded Esau of his birth- 
right. 


8 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


13. Lot, the twelve sons of Jacob, Amram, Moses, 
Aaron, Eleazar, Joshua, Caleb, and many others, who 
lived during the period in question, had each but one 
wife. On the supposition that polygamy was lawful, 
this fact cannot be explained. 

We have, then, the practice of the Patriarchs on this 
subject before the flood, in the example of Lamech, and 
that of the Apostates who filled the earth with violence ; 
and in that of Esau, and that of Jacob after the flood: 
four instances during the first two thousand seven hun- 
dred years of the world. In this statement of facts we 
find strong presumptive evidence that the Patriarchs did 
not regard Polygamy as lawful. Let us now inquire 
whether it was not expressly forbidden. 

The Great Original Law of Marriage, with the occa- 
sion of its promulgation, is thus recited im the second 
chapter of Genesis: ‘“‘ And the Lord God said, ‘It is 
not good that the man should be alone: I will make an 
help-meet for him’—And the Lord God brought the 
woman unto the man, and Adam said, ‘’This is now 
bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be 
called Woman, because she was taken out of Man’— 
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mo- 
ther, and shall cleave unto his wife ; and they shall 
be one flesh.” 

The comment of our Saviour on this Law, in the 19th 
of Matthew, will help us to explain it. The Phari- 
sees, tempting him, inquired, “Is it lawful for a man 
to put away his wife, for every cause.”—'T’o this he re- 
plied, “Have ye not read, that He who made them at 
the beginning, made them male and female ; and said,— 
‘For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, 
and shall cleave unto his wife, and they twain shall be 
one flesh.— Wherefore they are no more twain, but 


ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 9 


one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, 
let not Man put asunder.” 

The following remarks on this Law, may show on 
what footing Marriage was placed ah the Old Dis- 
pensation. 

1. The words—“ For this cause shall a man leave 
his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and 
they twain shall be one flesh”—were not, as some have 
supposed, the words of Adam, but were uttered by God. 
The language of Christ is, “He who made them at the 
beginning, said, ‘For this cause,” &c. The Maker of 
of Adam, therefore, and not Adam, said this; and the 
thing uttered was not a prediction of Adam, but a com- 
mand of God. 

2. This is the Great Original Law of Marriage binding 
on the whole human family. It was not a part of any 
Ceremonial Law, or of the National Law of Israel; but 
was promulgated at the original institution of marriage, 
to the first parents of mankind, as the representatives of 
the whole race. Men and women about to contract 
marriage were the only beings, and the very beings on 
whom it was binding. By the terms of it, Adam and 
Eve were personally exempted from its operation ; since 
they were already married, and Adam had no father or 
mother, whom he could leave. It was made, therefore, 
for their Posterity ; and since, in its binding force on 
them, there are no restrictions or limitations, it was 
clearly given to bind the whole human family. On 
this pvint the comment of Christ is express. The 
Jews inquired of him,—- Whether it was lawful for a 
man to put away his wife for every cause ?2—In his 
reply, he admits that Moses, for the hardness of their 
hearts, allowed divorces in certain cases; but asserts 
that in the beginning it was not so, He then declares, 


10 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


that, except in the single case of incontinence, it is not 
lawful for a man to put away his wife, and marry 
another; and assigns four reasons for it. (1.) The 
fact, that God originally created but one man and one 
woman, and joined them in marriage ; and thus ex- 
pressed his own pleasure that marriage should subsist 
between one man and one woman. (2.) That at the 
time when God instituted marriage, he declared “ For this 
cause shalla man leave his father and mother, and 
cleave unto his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh.” 
(3.) That that is the reason why two married _per- 
sons are no more twain, but one flesh. (4.) That 
all who are united in marriage, are joined together 
by God.—Here, then, is an express recognition of 
this law, as the Original Law of Marriage ; as in force 
from the beginning; as in full force under the Levitical 
Dispensation, amended as it was in a single point— 
that relating to divorces ; and, in consequence of the ex- 
press repeal of that amendment by Christ himself, ex- 
cept for one cause, as in force with that exception, in all 
its original extent under the Christian Dispensation. 

3. This Law in the very terms of it, as well as ac- 
cording to the comment of Christ, is an absolute prohi- 
bition of Polygamy. It is so in the terms of it. It de- 
clares that lawful marriage, as appointed by God, is the 
connection for life between éwain or two, one man and 
one woman, and that when they are married they cease 
to be twain, and are one flesh. It also declares that 
the man who is thus united to a woman in iuurriage, 
shall cleave unto her as his wife. Before, with filial 
affection, he clave unto his parents as a son, and ac- 
knowledged them only; and now, with conjugal affec- 
tion, he is directed as a husband to cleave unto his wife. 
This language is capable of but one interpretation. If 


ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 11 
>. | 


he is connected Sagithfamy. other woman, he ceases Zo 
cleave to his wife, and makes himself one flesh with a 
stranger. “ What, know ye not that he which is 
joined to an harlot, is one body?” 'The same is equally 
true, if the connection with the stranger were to be pre- 
ceded by the forms of marriage. Any connection with 
another woman is leaving his wife, and ceasing ¢o 
cleave to her, in the very point which the law respects. 
So obviously is this the only interpretation, that this 
very language is customarily used in the marriage cere- 
mony, when a promise is exacted from the parties, that 
they will be faithful to each other. 

This is equally evident from the comment of Christ. 
Afier admitting that Moses permitted Divorces, and as- 
signing the reason for it, he first declares that the Origi- 
nal Law of Marriage did not permit them ; and then, with 
a single exception, abrogates the Mosaic permission. ‘Whe 
Original Law did not allow of divorce in any case. He 
allows it in one—that of incontinence. With this ex- 
ception, he places the Law of Marriage on its original 
footing ; and declares, in language which cannot be 
misunderstood, its real force and meaning——“ He who 
putteth away his wife, except for incontinence, and mar- 
rieth another, committeth adultery.” But in what does 
the adultery, thus committed by the husband consist ? 
Not in the mere putting away. That might be cru- 
elty, but it is not adultery. Not in the mere marriage- 
contract. If he had stopped at that, there would have 
been no adultery-—It consisted in the fact, that, having 
one wife, he marries and has intercourse with another, 
before the first is dead or lawfully divorced. By the 
Original Law of Marriage, therefore, as thus explained 
by Christ, the man, who having a wife, marries another, 
before the first is lawfully divorced, is guilty of adultery. 
But every polygamist does this: every polygamist there- 


12 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


fore is guilty of adultery. Of course Polygamy, accord- 
ing to the Original Law of Marriage, is adultery.* 


* The declaration of our Saviour—“ Whosoever shall put away his 
wife, except it be for incontinence, and marry another, committeth 
adultery,”—is a sad comment on the laws respecting adultery in some of 
our Statute-books. According to the laws of some of the States, un- 
lawful intercourse, between a married woman and a married or single 
man, is adultery; whereas unlawful intercourse, between a married 
man and a single woman is merely fornication. In other words, they 
declare that a married man cannot commit adultery, but with a mar- 
ried woman. Wet us compare this with the express declaration of 
Christ, ‘‘ Whosoever putteth away his wife, except for incontinence, 
and marrieth another, committeth adultery.” In what does the adultery 
consist? Not, as we have just seen, in the putting away otf the first 
wife ; nor in the contract with the second. These are unlawful, but 
they are not adultery. Obviously it consists in the intercourse with the. 
second. Why is that intercourse adultery? Not because it is pre- 
ceded by a contract. That contract, Christ pronounces ipso facto 
void. It consists in the fact, that the man, at the time of that intercourse, 
is lawfully married toa wife. He, then, who being lawfully married to 
a wife, has intercourse with another woman, is, according to Christ, 
guilty of adultery. 

This conclusion is so direct, that a plain man might naturally won- 
der, why our laws should be as they are. The true reason is this: 
Our legislatures are composed exclusively of Men, and chiefly of mar- 
ried men, or of men who intend to marry. Of course, in the personal 
purity of married women, each member feels a lively interest, because 
he is resolved at all hazards, to guard the purity of his own wife. In- 
tercourse with a married woman must therefore be punished with a 
heavy hand. But how many are there, in those august bodies, who 
feel, each as lively an interest in his own purity, as in that of his wife? 
“Indeed!” says the law-maker “that alters the case.” Our legisla- 
tures contain so many members, who are determined atall hazards not 
to be restrained in their libertinism ; so many others, to whom whole- 
some laws, relating to licentiousness, might prove occasionally incon- 
venient ; and so many others who are habitually civil to vice, when it 
does not “ pick the pocket, nor break the leg;” that we can expect no 
Jaws on this subject which are not of a Mohammedan character. 

To set this point in its proper light, we will suppose a Legislature 
of Married Women assembled to make laws for one of the States, and 
actually enacting that unlawful intercourse, between a married manand 


ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 13 


A passage froma Mfalitdlgteho ula here be added, as it 
explains the reason of the scriptural constitution of mar- 
riage. In Mal. ii. 10—16, the prophet reproves the Is- 
raelites, with extreme severity, for their numerous di- 
vorces, and for their infidelity and cruelty to their wives. 
In verses.14 and 15, he declares, “‘ The Lord hath been 
witness, between thee and the wife of thy youth, against 
whom thou hath dealt treacherously ; yet she is thy 
companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did he 
not make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit ? 
And wherefore one? 'That he might seeka godly seed.” 
In other words, in the original constitution of marriage, 
God made one woman only, and united her to Adam, 
and thus appointed Marriage to be the union of one 
man with one woman. He was able to have made 
more: why then did he create but onE? Because he 
foresaw, if more than one woman wete created and giv- 
en to Adam; in other words, if Polygamy, and not Mar- 
riage, were established ; that a godly seed would be im- 
possible. This is a plain declaration therefore that God 
forbad the Human race to practise Polygamy, because 
of its immoral tendency. 

The Original Law of Marriage, then, prohibited Polyga- 
my to mankind; and no repeal of that law, partial or total, 
is on record, under the Patriarchal Dispensation. Hence, 
it was then in force; and the fact, that it was violated 
by Jacob and Esau, by Lamech, and by the Apostates 
whose crimes provoked the Deluge, has been fully ac- 


a woman whether single or married, should be punished as adultery : 
but that such intercourse, between a married woman and a single man 
should be mere fornication. What wordscould express the abhorrence 
of our existing legislators, at such shameless profligacy. Would they 
not pronounce such a body of females just fit for the purlieus of a 
brothel ? 


2 


14 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


counted for, without the least necessity of supposing that 
it had experienced either a temporary suspension, or an 
abrogation. 


II. Was Polygamy Lawful under the Levitical 
Code? 

We have seen that the great Original Law of Marriage 
was binding on the whole human family, and that that 
law absolutely prohibited Polygamy. The question then 
arises, was that law repealed, as to its operation on the 
Israelites, by the Levitical Code ? 

That a single section of it, that which prohibited di- 
vorces, was repealed, is admitted. The repealing statute, 
however, acknowledged the general law to be in full 
force. Those, who contend that Polygamy was lawful 
to the Israelites, are then fairly called upon to point out 
the statute in the Levitical Code, which repealed that 
part of the Original Law of Marriage that forbad Po- 
lygamy. In reply to this call, three passages, beside 
Lev. xviii. 18, the one in controversy, have been ad- 
duced, as containing direct or implied permissions of Po- 
lygamy: those are Exodus xxi. 7—11; Deut.. xxi. 
15---17; and 2 Samuel xii. 7,8. Weshall give each 
a distinct examination. 

The first of these passages is as follows: Ex. xxi. 
7. “And if aman sell his daughter to be a maid ser- 
vant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. 8. If 
she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to him- 
self, then shall he let her be redeemed. T'o sell her toa 
strange nation, he shall have no power; seeing he hath 
dealt deceitfully with her. 9. And if he hath betrothed 
her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the man- 
ner of daughters. 10. If he take him another wife, her 
food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage shall he not 


ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 15 


diminish. . 11. And if he do not these three unto her, 
then shall he let her go out without money.” 

The mere English reader would suppose, from this 
passage, that the Hebrew master was authorized to buy 
a female servant, to betroth her, to have connection with 
her, and then refuse to marry her ; that he might then 
betroth her to his son, if he had one of the proper age ; 
and that for this treatment he was required, either to 
send her back to her father without money, or to keep 
her in his own house, and render her the requisite food, 
clothing, and sexual intercourse. Before we admit all 
this, we must give the passage a close examination. 

This version of the passage contains three palpable 
mistakes. The first is found in the eighth verse, where 
the English translators, by following the Septuagint 
rather than the Hebrew, have omitted the small but most 
significant particle of, and thus totally perverted the 
meaning of the original. In Hebrew, the word §>;, 
answering to no/, in English, stands immediately before 
79", rendered betrothed. 'This reading is supported 
by all the manuscripts consulted by Kennicott, except 
one, and by all the manuscripts and editions of the Sa- 
maritan Pentateuch. It is likewise recognized in the 
Hebrew-Samaritan, Syriac, and Persian versions, and 
in that of Arias Montanus. The Arabic version also 
sanctions it ; rendering the passage, ‘If it displease her 
master to take her to wife, let him see that she is redeem- 
ed;” as does the Vulgate also—“If she displease the 
eyes of her master, to whom she had been entrusted, he 
shall send her back.” In the same manner, the modern 
version of Augusti and De Wette—‘ Wenn sie dem 
Herrn missfallt, dass er sie nicht fiir sich bestimmt ”——“ If 
she displease her master, so that he does not betroth her 
to himself.” The true rendering of the 8th yerse there- 


16 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


fore is, “If she please not her master, so that he does not 
betroth her to himself, he shall suffer her to be redeemed. 
To sell her unto a strange nation he shall not have 
power, seeing he hath rejected her.” 

The second mistake is in the 10th verse, in the pas- 
sage, “If he take unto him another wife.” The word 
wife is italicized in our version, because there is no word 
corresponding to it inthe Hebrew. It ought not to have 
been foisted upon the English version, because it makes 
a false impression; implying that the first woman was also 
his wife, and therefore that he had two wives at the same 
time: whereas, the 8th verse expressly declares that he 
had refused even to betroth her. Had it been rendered, 
“Tf he marry another,” it would have conveyed the pre- 
cise meaning of the Hebrew, viz. If he marry another 
woman instead of her. 

The third mistake is also found in the 10th verse, in 
the passage—‘ her food, her raiment, and her duty of 
marriage, shall he not diminish.” The word AO33, 
here rendered duty of marriage, occurs, in “this 
form in no other place. Different lexicographers derive it 
from 349, to dwell, and from 2Y, to toil, to suffer, and 
in Pihel, to humble. 'The first of these words, 34¥, to 
dwell, is obsolete as a verb; but, as a noun with a forma- 
tive 7, Vid, denoting dwelling, habitation, it. occurs 
frequently. The other word M2¥, denoting in Pihel, ¢o 
humble, is used eleven times in connection with TBR, 
a woman, but always as a verb. In seven of these, 
Gen. xxxiv. 2; Deut. xxii. 24; 2Sam. xiii. 12,14, and 22; 
and Lam. v. 11, it denotes to humble by ravishing ; 
and in four, Deut. xxi. 14; Ezek. xiii. 12, 14, 22, it de- 
notes to humble by illicit intercourse. In no other 
case, has it any allusion to the commerce of the sexes, 


ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 17 


and in these eleven instances only to unlawful com- 
merce. If then we derive it from this word, it is impos- 
sible to render it duty of marriage. Surely that, which, 
when doing as a verb, is unlawful intercourse, cannot, 
when done and turned into a noun, be regarded as law- 
Sul wedlock. If we derive it from 341Y, to dwell, there 
is no connection between that word and duty of mar- 
riage; nor does any derivative from it refer remotely to 
the commerce of the sexes. ‘I'he only other derivative 
from that word signifies uniformly dwelling, habitation ; 
and the word in question occurs only here. 

The weight of authority in the versions, is wholly 
against this rendering. ‘I'he three words rendered food, 
raiment, and duty of marriage, are rendered by Wal- 
ton, in the Polyglott, as follows:—In the Samaritan 
Text, “alimentum, operimentum, et habitationem,” 
food, raiment, and habitation :—In the Samaritan ver- 
sion by a single phrase comprehending these three— 
“vile ejus necessaria,” her necessaries of life :---In 
the Syriac version by “ alimentum, indumentum, et 
accubitum,”*- food, clothing, and lodging :---In the Vul- 
gate, by “providebit puella@ nuptias, et vestimenta, et 
pretium pudicitia,” a rendering which precludes the 
supposition, that she had been married to her master, 
and at the same time directs him to procure for her mar- 
riage with another man. The Targum, the Septua- 
gint, and the Arabic version, agree substantially with 
the English translation; the Arabic version, however, is 
little more than a translationof the Septuagint. 

That the word in question ought not to be rendered 


* Accubitus means either Sitting, or reclining, at table, or Lying down 
for sleep. As food has been already mentioned, it must here mean the 
latter, 1. e. lodging. ge 


18 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


duty of marriage, is therefore obvious for the following 
reasons. - 

1. As the girl was not married, and the master, be- 
cause he disliked her, would not even betroth her, the 
duty of marriage was impossible. Any sexual duty, 
rendered in those circumstances, must. have been the 
duty of illicit intercourse. 

2. No derivation of the word, as well as no use of the 
word, or of any cognate word in any other case, will as- 
sociate with it the idea of lawful intercourse by mar- 
riage: it having no refererence to any commerce of the 
sexes, but what is unlawful. 

3. The weight of authorities is wholly against the 
rendering. 

4. 'The other rendering, viz. habitation, lodging, is 
the natural rendering of a noun derived from the verb 
21¥, to dwell, and the actual rendering of another noun 
derived from the same verb; has the weight of authori- 
ties in its favour ; and is consistent with the declaration 
in the eighth verse, that the girl was not betrothed, as 
well as with common decency. 

The whole passage, thus corrected, will read as fol- 
lows : 

7. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid- 
servant, she shall not go out as the men-servantsdo. 8. 
If she please not her master, so that he does not betroth 
her to himself, then he shall suffer her to be redeemed : 
(i. e. when the opportunity of establishing her in mar- 
riage has arrived :) to sell her unto a strange nation, he 
shall have no power; seeing he hath rejected her him- 
self. 9. And if he betroth her to his son, he shall deal 
with her after the manner of daughters.. 10. If he 
marry another person, he shall furnish her with food, 
clothing, and lodging, (or the necessaries of life.) 11. 


a 


ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 19 


And if he do not furnish those three, he oo. let her go 
out free, without money. 

The verb’, in the seventh verse, rendered sell, ac- 
cording to Gesenius, usually denotes to receive a mar- 
riage portion for. 'The master by paying it to the 
father, had a right to the services of the daughter as a 
maid-servant, and if he were a single man, to marry her: 
the right of choice on the part of females not being 
known in the East. If the master was married, or chose 
not to marry her himself, he had a right, if she was of 
the proper age, to betroth her to his son, without paying 
an additional portion. If neither of these were done, 
her friends, by paying back the portion received, had a 
right to redeem her, and to marry her to another man. 
If she was not redeemed, and her master chose not to 
marry her, and married another woman, he was bound 
to furnish her with the customary food, clothing, and 
lodging ; and, on failure of these, she was at liberty to go 
back to her friends unredeemed. 

This passage, therefore, contains no sanction of Poly- 
gamy, and no permission of the gross immorality and 
cruelty apparently authorized by the English translation. 

The second passage, which has been supposed to au- 
thorize Polygamy, is found in Deuteronomy xxi. 15—17. 

15. “If a man have two wives, one beloved and the 
other hated, and they have borne him children, both the . 
beloved and the hated; and the first-born be hers that 
was hated. 16. Then it shall be, when he maketh his 
sons to inherit that which he hath, he may not make 
the son of the beloved first-born, before the; son of the 
hated, which is indeed the first-born. 17. But he shall 
acknowledge the son of the hated for the first-born, by 
giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he 


20 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


is the beginning of his strength: the right of the first- 
born is his.” 

The argument here used is this :—Moses here legis- 
lates on the case of a man who has two wives at the 
same time: But he could not lawfully legislate upon 
that wibich might not lawfully exist: To have two wives 
es same time, was therefore lawful.—Or, to state it 
the I Latin of the schoolmen, “ Qui disponit de conse- 
que: i e. de jure inter liberos polygamorum, ille 

etiam vult antecedens, i. e. polygamiam.” 

For a moment we will admit, for the sake of argu- 
ment, the major of the syllogism, viz. that Moses here 
legislates upon the case of a man who has two wives at 
the same time. Let us then test the minor by a paral- 
lel case. In Deut. xxiii. 18, it is said, “ Thou shalt not 
bring the. hire of a harlot into the house of the Lord 
thy God, for any vow.” ‘Taught then by the school- 
men, we thus argue— Moses here legislates upon the 
wages of a harlot, and therefore supposes that harlots 
will receive the wages of prostitution: But he could not 
legislate upon that which might not lawfully exist: To 
be a harlot and earn the wages of prostitution, were 
therefore lawful. This conclusion sounds oddly, when 
we read the remainder of the verse, “For this is an 
abomination unto the Lord;” or the preceding verse, 

-“'There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel.” 

Let us test this principle by another case. By the 
common law of England, if an illegitimate son is born, 
and the parents subsequently marry, and have a legiti- 
mate son ; the latter, who is called mulier-puisné, has 
a right to the inheritance. But if, after the father’s 
death, the older son, who is styled bastard-eigné, ente 
on the estate, and enjoys it till his death, and dies sei 
thereof leaving issue male, that issue shall inherit the ve 


Me SS es 


ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 21 


estate ; and the legitimate son and his heirs are forever 
barred of their right to it. The reasoning of the school- 
men, an to this case, would be as follows: “Qui 
disponit de consequenti, i. e. de jure inter liberos scor- 
torum, ille etiam vult antecedens, i. e. scortationem.” 
This conclusion would light up a smile, even on ihe face 
of a logician. 

But the question now presents itself, does Mc e; 
legislate upon the case of a man who has two ves: at 
the same time? ‘That our translators themselves thought 
otherwise, and that they actually wrote “Ifa man have 
had,” and not, “If a man have,” and that the word 
had was omitted by some mistake, is highly probable 
from the fact, that they say in the same verse,—-“ and 
the first-born be hers that was hated,” not, “ hers that 7s 
hated :” evidently intimating that she (the first wife) 
was dead, at the time referred to. 

To put this question at rest, however, I will cite the 
various versions of the Polyglott. 

Septuagint. "Env dt yevavras (not yhyavres)——noer Tenwoey 
maidas (not rixraciv) x. 7. a Ifthere have been toaman 
two wives, and they have borne him sons, &e. 

Vulgate. Si habuwerit homo uxores duas, et peper- 
erint ei filios? If a man have had two wives, and they 
have borne, &c. 

Arias, Montanus. Cum fuerint viro due uxores, et 
pepererint filios : When aman has had two wives, and 
they have borne, &c. 

Samaritan Text, Cum fuerint viro due uxores, 
genuerintque filios. 

Samaritan Version. Cum fuerint viro due uxores, 
uerintque filios. 
argum. Si fuerint viro due uxores, et pepere- 


a int éi filios. 


...* 


22 * ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


_ Syriac Version. Cumque fuerint alicui due uxores, 
et pepererint, &c. ‘ 
Arabic. Ett cum fueriné viro due uxores, et ambe 
genuerint filios. , . 


I will only add, that the words rendered have had, 
and have borne, both in the original and in all the trans- 
lations, are in the same tense, and refer to events that 
have already taken place. Moses, therefore, does not 
here legislate upon the case of a man, who has two 
wives at the same time, but upon the case of a man 
who hus had two wives in succession, the second after 
the decease of the first. And there was an obvious ne- 
cessity of his legislating upon this precise case ; for the 
first wife, who was hated, was dead, and the second wife, 
the favourite, was alive, and, with the feelings of a step- 
mother, would urge her husband to make her own son 
the heir, ‘This passage, then, furnishes no evidence that 
Polygamy was lawful, under the Levitical code. 

The third passage which has been supposed to sanction 
Polygamy, is a part of the message from God, delivered 
by Nathan to David, after his conduct to Uriah, in 2 
Sam. xii. 7, 8: “I anointed thee King over Israel, and 

‘I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; I gave thee 
thy master’s house and thy master’s wives into thy 
bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah ; 
and if that had been too little, I would moreover have 
given unto thee such and such things.” That this 
message furnishes no such sanction, will be obvious, I 
think, from the following considerations. 

1. The only wives which Saul is said to have had, 
were Ahinoam, the mother of Michal David’s wife, 
and Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, who was his con- 
cubine. According to this supposition, God authorized 
David to marry his wife’s mother, a species of incest ex- 


P ' 


ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. " 23 


pressly threatened by the Levitical Law with burning 
alive. David also married Michal, the daughter of Ahi- 
noam, when he was quite young. Her very age, there- 
fore, precludes the supposition that he afterwards mar- 
ried the mother. 

2. 'Though.David’s wives are repeatedly enumerated, 
after the death of Saul, yet. there is no intimation that 
the wives of Saul were among them, or that he had mar- 
ried them. 

3. David delivered the two sons of Rizpah to the 
Gibeonites, to be hung up at Gibeah, an event not very 
likely to have taken place, if he had made her his wife. 

4. The phraseology, “I gave thee thy master’s house 
(family) and thy master’s wives into thy bosom,” obvi- 
ously means nothing more than that God, in his provi- 
dence, gave David, as King of Israel, the possession of 
every thing that was Saul’s,—his wives and all that he 
had : a fact, which gave edge to the reproof, “ wherefore, 
then, hast thou killed Uriah, the Hittite, and taken his 
wife to be thy wife 2” 

5. Had Absalom, who actually connected himself with 
ten of his father’s concubines, ultimately succeeded in 
his treason; and, after the firm establishment of his: 
throne, had he provoked, by a crime similar to that of 
David in the case of Uriah, a similar reproof; it might 
have been said to him as truly as to David, (even if we 
admit that David married the wives of his father-in law,) 
“T anointed thee King over Israel, and delivered thee 
out of the hand of David; and I gave thee thy father’s 
house, and thy father’s wives into thy bosom :” for God 
expressly foretold to David, that Absalom would thus con- 
nect himself with his wives : (2 Sam. xii. 11:) yet who, 
from this fact, would have supposed that Absalom’s inces- 
tuous Polygamy with his father’s wives was lawful ?” 


+ 


i a. 


24 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


This passage, then, furnishes no evidence of the lawful- 
ness of Polygamy. The history itself furnishes conclu- 
sive evidence that David never was actually married to 
the wives of Saul. If, however, in spite of that evi- 
dence, it be contended that he was, still it was a case of 
incest expressly prohibited, under the penalty of being 
burned alive; and if this be an allusion toit, it is an al- 
lusion to it baihiy as an event of providence. 

The Levitical code, therefore contained no express re- 
peal of that part of the Great Original Law of Marriage, 
which prohibited Polygamy, unless it is contained in the 
disputed passage of Leviticus xvii. 18. That passage 
will be examined on its own merits hereafter. 

We shall now inquire, whether the Practice of the 
Israelites proves that Polygamy was permitted by the 
Levitical Code; or, in other words, that the Original 
Law of Marriage had been repealed. | 

As the conduct of the best men falls far below the per- 
fect standard of the Divine Law; it is obvious that 
it must be an unsafe criterion, from which to deter- 
mine what the Law of Godis. Especially unsafe must 
it be, to determine this from the conduct of licentious and 
profligate men; much more, if these men, live in an ir- 
regular, unsettled state of society, and are amenable to no 
human laws; still more, if they are possessed of abso- 
lute power; and most unsafe of all must it be, to areue 
from the conduct of such men, in such circumstances,— 
not what the Law of God is, in a case otherwise un- 
known, but—that an Express and Universal law, stand- 
ing on the pages of the Divine statute-book, to bind 
the Human Race, has been repealed. With these things 
in view, we will examine the actual Practice of the Is- 
raelites. 

Gideon, the third Judge of Israel, and a military 


ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 55 


chieftain, had many wives, and one concubine, and sev- 
enty-one sons. Weare also told, that he set up an im-+ 
age in Ophrah his city; that all Israel went thither a 
whoring after it; that it became a snare to Gideon and his 
family ; and that Abimelech, the son of his concubine, 
assassinated all but one of the children of his wives. 

Jair, the fifth Judge of Israel, had thirty children. 
This is not conclusive evidence that he had more than 
one wife; and much less that he had more than one at 
atime. A citizen of North Carolina, a few years since, 
petitioned the Legislature of that state for exemption 
from taxes, because his wife, then living, had borne him 
twenty-nine children, most of whom he had educated. 
One other case has been reported to me in this country, 
in which the same married pair had thirty children. 
That Jair should have had as many, by two successive 
wives, would have been in no rire surprising. 

Ibzan, the seventh of the Judges, had thirty sons and 
thirty daughters. This was unquestionably a case of 


polygamy. 
Abdon, the ninth Judge of Israel, had forty sons, and 
was doubtless a polygamist. te 


Samson, the tenth Judge of Israel, after his lawful 
wife at Timnath had been given to another, associated 
with a harlot at Gaza, and afterwards with another in 
the valley of Sorek. But this was not polygamy. 

Elkanah, a man in private life, and a good man, had 
two wives. Weare told however that he lived “in those 
days when there was no king in Israel, and every man 
did that which was right in his own eyes.” His history, 
also, is chiefly made up of the distress, brought upon his 
family, by his polygamy. 

It is said of the children or descendents af Uzzi, the 
grandson of Issachar, fev they practised polygamy. 


~ ‘ 
3 : 


26 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


They also lived, when “ every man did that which was 
right in his own eyes.” Their polygamy is assigned as 
the reason, why they were numerous, compared with the 
other. families of the tribe. It was of course singular, 
and did not prevail generally, either in Issachar, or in 
Israel. 

Saul, the first king of Israel, had a wife and a concu- 
bine. He was judicially cut off for his wickedness. 

David, the second king of Israel, had eight wives and 
numerous concubines. In this conduct he transgressed 
an express law, which forbad the king of Israel, to 
multiply wives unto himself. He was a good man, 
yet his life was deformed by various crimes of a very 
gross character. It is said, however, that he is styled the 
man after God’s own heart, and that his conduct is 
declared to have been acceptable to God, except in the 
case of Uriah. This language, however, must be 
interpreted with many qualifications ; for he was guilty 
of gross ingratitude and falsehood to Achish and of 
falsehood to Ahimelech; and was sorely punished for 
the direct violation of an express law in numbering 
Israel. 

Solomon, the third king of Israel, had seven hundred 
wives and three hundred concubines. ‘This was an 
outrageous violation of the same express law against 
the multiplication of wives. “ And it came to pass, 
when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his 
heart ofter other gods, and his heart was not perfect with 
the Lord his God.” 'These two cases no more prove the 
law against polygamy to have been repealed, than they 
prove the law against the king’s multiplying wives unto 
himself to have been repealed. 

Rehoboam, the fourth king of Israel and the first 
king of Judah, had eighteen wives and sixty concu- 


ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. oF 


bines ; “and he forsook the law of the Lord, and all 
Israel with him.” 

Abijah, the second king of Judah, had fourteen 
wives; “and he walked in all the sins of his father, 
which he had done before him.” 

Ahab, the eleventh king of Israel, had numerous wives, 
and seventy sons: “And Ahab did evil, in the sight of 
the Lord, above all that were before him in Israel.” 

Jehoram, the fifth king of Judah, and the son-in-law 
of Ahab, had several wives; “ And he walked in the 
way of the kings of Israel, like as did the house of 
Ahab, and he wrought evil in the eyes of the Lord. 
And he caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit 
fornication, and he compelled Judah thereto.” 

It is alleged that Joash, the seventh king of Judah, 
and the grand-son of Athaliah, had two wives at the 
same time; and that the account given of this fact in 
2 Chron. xxiv. 2, 3, furnishes a strong presumption in 
favour of the practice—“ And Joash did that which was 
right in the sight of the Lord all the days of Jehoiada 
the priest. And Jehoiada took for him (75,) two wives; 
and he begat sons and daughters.” 'The following re- 
marks may, serve to explain this passage. The He- 
brew word sb rendered for him, means alike either for 
him, or for himself. 'The Rabbins render the passage, 
“ And Jehoiada took unto himself (i.e. married) two 
wives, and begat sons and daughters ;” and they insist 
that he married them in succession. This, if the pas- 
sage refers to Jehoiada, is probable; for the language 
implies nothing more, than that he had two wives, 
without specifying when ; and there is no instance on 
record of polygamy in a priest. If we suppose that Je- 
hoiada took two wives for Joash, and both at the same 


28 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


time ; still the language here used will not prove poly- 
gamy to have been sanctioned by the law of God. It 
does not follow from the declaration, that “ Joash did 
that which was right in the sight of the Lord, all the 
days of Jehoiada ;” for, in the parallel passage in 
Kings, we are told, that Joash refused to abolish idola- 
try, during the days of Jehoiada. It is also said of Da- 
vid, that he did that which was right in the sight of 
the Lord, except in the matter of Uriah; yet by this 
language, apparently so universal, as we have just seen, 
it was not intended to justify his falsehoods to Ahimelech 
and Achish, or his disobedience to an express statute in 
numbering Israel. Of the better class of the kings of 
Judah, it is also said, that they did that which was 
right in the sight of the Lord, during their reigns; 
and yet the prophets have recorded their numerous sins. 
The phrase, therefore, neans only, that their conduct 
was generally acceptable to God; but furnishes no evi- 
dence of the lawfulness of any one specific act. The 
fact too that Jehoiada took two wives for Joash, if it 
was a fact, does not prove this pot. Athaliah and her 
son Amaziah had introduced a universal corruption of 
morals into Judah, and had made idolatry the religion 
of the court and of the nation. Jehoiada endeavoured 
to restore the worship of the true God; yet during the 
king’s minority, he did not take away the high places, 
nor put down idolatry except at Jerusalem. That, in 
such a state of things, he should have yielded, in this 
point, to the king’s wishes, when he was forced to yield 
in points of so much more consequence, will excite na 
surprise, and can furnish no evidence that polygamy 
had been sanctioned by the law of God.. 

Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, had several wives. 


ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 29 


“ Neither did Zedekiah hearken unto the words of the 
Lord.” | He was dethroned for his disobedience. 

These, if I mistake not, are all the instances of poly- 
gamy on record among the Israelites. They amount, 
if we include Joash, to only thirteen single instances, 
beside that of the children Uzzi, in a period of more 
than twelve hundred years. That these cases prove 
that the law of God permitted polygamy, is argued 
on four different grounds, which we will now ex- 
amine. 

1. From the number of those who practised polyga- 
my. 'The actual number on record, we have seen, is 
thirteen single instances, beside that of the children of 
Uzzi, in a period of more than twelve hundred years. 
But it cannot surprise any one that in a period of that 
length, and in a nation so corrupt, thirteen instances of 
polygamy should have occurred ; when, during that pe- 
riod, many more instances of murder, adultery, and’ 
idolatry, are on record: or that, of these thirteeen in- 
stances, twelve should have been of persons possessed 
of absolute power; when Gideon, and Solomon, and 
nineteen of the kings of Israel, and twelve of the kings 
of Judah, in all thirty-three persons possessed of abso- 
lute power, were publicly and habitually idolaters: or 
that Elkanah and the children of Uzzi, private indi- 
viduals, are recorded as polygamists; when not only 
Micah, and his mother, and the Levite his priest, were 
idolaters, but the children of Dan publicly established 
idolatry and an idolatrous priesthood, from the days of 
Micah until the captivity; when sacrifices to idols in 
groves and high places continued in Israel, from the 
days of Jeroboam until the captivity of the ten tribes ; 
and in Judah from the time of Solomon, with scarcely 
an exception, until the seprane into Babylon. 


30 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


‘Were the reasoning, thus applied to the Hebrew his- 
tory, to be adopted in any other case, it would lead to 
singular results. The nations of Europe, during the 
last twelve hundred years and upwards, have professed 
to be Christians, and to respect the Laws of God. Yet, 
were a prophet of God to write the history of any one 
of them during that period, not excepting that of Rome 
itself, of its popes, cardinals, and bishops, he would detail 
—not thirteen, but—thirteen hundred instances of open, 
acknowledged, long-continued, multifarious, and yet 
unpunished adultery. Yet this does not prove, that the 
Law of God forbidding adultery has been repealed, nor 
even that it is authorized by the laws of those countries. 
Were a Mohammedan to visit Italy, and to find the sys- 
tems of cicisbeism and nepotism pervading its gentle 
and noble families, and even the court and palace of His 
Holiness, and the former system regularly recognized in 
marriage contracts; were he to visit Austria, and to 
find- numbers of her princes and nobles maintaining 
each his eastern haram, and her Prime Minister for 
the last. twenty-five years bestowing office as the price 
of beauty ; and were he to discover that the crime, for 
which the Cities of the Plain were destroyed by a storm 
of fire, was most notoriously and impudently prevalent 
throughout Austria, Italy, and France; he might be 
ready to exclaim, “ Why the Bible is no better than the 
Koran !” yet, while we could not deny his facts, we 
should all be ready to question his logic. Nay, were a 
prophet. honestly to detail the occurrences of the last 
thirty winters at our own capital, i. e. for the fortieth 
part of twelve hundred years, if we did not find in the 
record more than thirteen instances of known unpun- 
ished adultery, as well as of bribery, his book would 
greatly raise the reputation of our native land. 


ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 81 


2. From the Character of those who practised polyga- 
my.. It will hardly be insisted that Saul, Rehoboam, Abi- 
jah, Ahab, Jehoram, Joash, and Zedekiah had sufficient 
weight of character, to prove all that they did to be jus- 
tifiable. Gideon’s setting up and maintaining an idol 
at Ophrah, and seducing the Israelites to Idolatry, is at 
least.a suspicious circumstance in his case. The fact, 
that Solomon’s wives turned his heart from God, and 
led him to erect high places to idols, is no very strong 
circumstance in his favour, or in favour of polygamy. 
We know of Ibzan and of Abdon, only that they were 
Judges possessed of absolute power, and that they prac- 
tised polygamy. We know also of the children of Uzzi 
merely that they practised polygamy, just as we know 
of the children of Dan merely that they practised idola- 
try. The character of David did not justify his con- 
duct with Ahimelech or Achish, with Bathsheba or 
Uriah. Elkanah was a good man, yet not a better 
man than Abraham. Yet the character of Abraham 
does not prove his falsehoods to Abimelech and Pharaoh 
to be in accordance with the Law of God; neither, 
therefore, does the character of Kikanal» prove his poly- 
gamy to be in accordance with that Law. 

3. From the fact that no Punishment was inflicted 
on polygamists by the Government. 

Nine of the thirteen single instances were instances of 
Absolute Monarchs, whom no earthly tribunal could 
call to an account, or punish, for their conduct; and 
three of the remaining fowr were those of Judges, or 
Military Chieftains—men equally absolute with the 
Monarchs of Israel. That of Elkanah, and those of 
the children of Uzzi, occurred, as we have seen, in times 
when “every man did that which was right in his 
own eyes,” or, in-other words, had no one to call him. 


32 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


to an account. In each of.the instances, therefore, 
punishment was wholly out of the question. 

Other crimes, however, not less heinous than this, 
and expressly forbidden, also escaped punishment. 
Though Abimelech, Saul, Doeg, David, Joab in re- 
peated instances, Ahab, Zimri, Athaliah, Joash, and 
many others, were guilty of murder; Gilead, Samson, 
the wife of the Levite, Hophni, Phineas, David, and 
Absalom, of adultery ; Amnon of rape; Gideon, Micah, 
his mother, the Levite who* lived with him, and the 
Danites who robbed him, and their descendents for suc- 
cessive generations, Solomon, Jeroboam and his eighteen 
successors on the throne of Israel, as well as Rehoboam 
and eleven more of the kings of Judah, were guilty of 
idolatry ; and the body of the two nations in numberless 
instances apostatized, and worshipped the gods of the 
surrounding countries ; yet, in no one of these instances, 
was the sentence of the law inflicted by the government, 
on any individual. Yet surely this fact furnishes no 
evidence that murder, adultery, rape, and idolatry, were 
permitted, either by the laws of Israel, or the law of 
God. 

4. From the fact, that no Censure is pronounced on 
those who practised Polygamy by the scriptural writers. 
We have already seen that the Original Law of Mar- 
riage universally forbad it; that Malachi severely cen- 
sures the conduct, and declares that God forbad it to 
Man because of its demoralizing efficacy, and that 
Christ pronounces every one, who practises it, an adul- 
terer.. We have also seen that Polygamy is assigned 
as the cause of that general corruption and violence, 
which occasioned the Deluge ; and that either Lamech, 
the first. polygamist was a murderer, or that his poly- 
gamy, the first transgression of the Law of Marriage, 


ESSAY. ON POLYGAMY. 33 


Was the reason why his wives apprehended, that he 
would be put to death. In the instances of Jacob and 
Elkanah, it is exhibited as one of the principal causes 
of the misfortunes of their lives. In that of Jacob also, 
Reuben his eldest son defiled Bilhah one of his father’s 
concubines ; and what Jacob’s feelings were on the 
occasion wks may learn from his dying address to Reuben 
more than forty years afterwards: “Reuben, thou art 
my first-born: unstable as water, thou shalt not excel, 
because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed ; then de- 
filedst thou it: he went up to my couch.” In the case 
of Gideon we are told, that Abimelech, the son of his 
concubine, assassinated sixty-nine out of seventy of the 
children of his wives. In the case of David, Amnon, 
the son of one of his wives, committed a rape on Thamar, 
the daughter of another ; while Absalom, the brother of 
Thamar, killed Amnon, and then expelled David from 
his throne, and violated his father’s concubines in the 
sight of all Israel. Of the wives and concubines of 
Sclomon, it is expressly said, that they turned his heart 
away from God. And in the cases of Saul, Reho- 
boain, Abijah, and Ahab, the general character of each 
is described as dreadfully wicked, and their polygamy 
is mentioned as one of the incidents of their lives. 

The supposition, that those, who practised polygamy, 
are not censured for it, in the Scriptures, is therefore an 
entire mistake. Yet it is true, that various instances 
are recorded, in which the individuals mentioned are 
not censured at the time. If, then, there be any force 
in this argument, it grows out of the truth of the general 
principle, that whatever actions are recorded in the Scrip- 
tures, without any direct censure at the time, are law- 
ful. So far, however, is this principle from being true, 
that, with the single exception of the crime of idolatry —~ 


34 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


an exception growing out of the peculiar enormity of 
the crime, which was direct High-treason against Jeho- 
vah, as the acting Governor of Israel,—it is the cus- 
tomary mode of the scriptural writers, in recording 
crimes, simply to mention them as actions or events 
which occurred, without expressing an opinion as to the 
character of these actions. 'This is the natural method{of 
recording such actions in a book like the Bible ; in which 
the great general principles, which stamp the character 
of actions, are previously and distinctly established, and 
~ therefore considered as known. This is often true in- 
deed, even in the case of idolatry. The idolatry of 
Terah, that of Laban and. Rachel, that of Gideon, and 
that of Micah, of his mother, and of the Levite his 
priest, are simply mentioned as facts, without a com- 
ment. As to the idolatry of the Danites, which con- 
tinued to the time of the captivity, all that is said is, that 
“the children of Dan set up the graven image of Micah, 
in the city of Dan; and Jonathan the son of Gershom, 
the son of Manasseh, he and his sons, were priests to 
the tribe of Dan, until the day of the captivity of the 
land ; and they set up Micah’s graven image, all the 
time the house of God was in Shiloh.” When the 
sacred historians inform us that Noah was guilty of in- 
temperance; that Abraham uttered a known direct 
falsehood to Abimelech, and another to Pharaoh, both, 
at the imminent hazard of his wife’s purity ; that Isaac, 
under similar circumstances,.did the same to Pharaoh ; 
that Lot offered his two daughters to the men who sur- 
rounded his house; that he was twice guilty of drunken- 
ness; that his two daughters successively made him 
drunk, and were then guilty of incest with their father ; 
that Jacob, at the instigation of Rebekah his mother, 
told repeated falsehoods to Isaac, and that he defrauded 


ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 35 


Esau of his birthright and his blessing; that Laban 
deceived and defrauded Jacob, by substituting Leah for 
Rachel ; and that Jacob in his turn defrauded Laban, 
in his management with regard to the cattle; that 
Rachel stole her father’s idols, and then told him a direct 
falsehood to escape detection ; that Esau collected an 
armed force, to take away Jacob’s life ; that the sons of 
Jacob sold Joseph into Egypt, and then told a wilful 
falsehood to their father, under circumstances of the 
most aggravated filial impiety ; that Judah was guilty of 
lewdness with Thamar, not knowing her, and Thamar 
of known incest with her father-in-law ; that Reuben 
committed adultery and incest with Bilhah his father’s 
concubine ; that Gilead was guilty of lewdness with a 
harlot ; that Samson was guilty of repeated adulteries ; 

that Joab killed his brother Asahel; and that David 
told a direct falsehood to Ahimelech, and another to 
Achish ;—these various events, as well as many of a 
similar nature in subsequent parts of the Scriptures, are 
recorded simply as events, without any comment at the 
time; and almost all of them, without any comment 
afterwards. But does this fact prove that intemperance, 
lying, incest, fraud, prostitution, idolatry, adultery and 
murder, were lawful ?—If not, neither does the fact, that 
Polygamy is not in every case censured at the time, 
prove that Polygamy was lawful. . 

It may not be improper to mention, in this place, a 
remarkable example of this nature. In Ley. xxxiii. 
33, 34, the Israelites were commanded to dwell in 
booths seven days every year at the feast of tabernacles, 
throughout their generations for ever. Yet we are told 
by Nehemiah that, from the days of Joshua (B. C. 1446) 
to his days, (B. C. 444,) or 1002 years, it was wholly 
neglected. Yet not a word of censure, for this neglect, 


> 


: fag ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


‘iss escaped those, who wrote the’ iain of that long 
~ interval. 

From these auncharealtta it is wehbe if I mistake 
not, that no solid argument, in favour of the lawfulness 
of Polygamy to the Israelites, can be derived, either from 
the Number, or the Character, of those who practised _ 
it, or from the fact that they. escaped Punishment from 
the government, or Censure from the scriptural writers. 
Were the principle, indeed, once settled, that it is lawful 
to determine what the law of Ged is, from the conduct 
of any class of men whatever, and from the fact that 

_that conduct is recorded without censure by the scriptural 
writers; when we remember the falsehoods of Abraham 
to Abimelech and Pharaoh, of Isaac to Pharaoh, of Re- 
bekah and Jacob to Isaac, of Laban to Jacob, of Rachel 
to Laban, of the eleven patriarchs to Jacob, of Ehud to 
Eelon, of Jael to Sisera, and the manner in whieh her © 
conduct is spoken of by Deborah, of David to Achish 
and Ahimelech, and of Elisha to the host of Benhadad, 
(2 Kings vi. 19.) at the very time when he beheld the 
mountain full of horses and. chariots of fire, and had 
just wrought a miracle in smiting the whole Syrian 
army with blindness; and reflect that these various 
instances of known direct falsehood are all recorded 
without censure by the sacred writers ;—--we should have 
far stronger evidence, that the Law forbidding wilful 
falsehood was repealed under the Patriarchal and Levi- 
tical Dispensations, than we can find of the repeal of 
the Law of Marriage, in the account which they give 
of the practice of polygamy. 

The result of our inquiry then is this, that Polygamy 
was universally forbidden to mankind by the Great 
Original Law of Marriage; that no evidence of any 
repeal of that law, so far as it prohibited Polygamy, is 


ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 33 
ae 


found in the scriptures ; and of course that Polygam 
was unlawful both to the Patriarchs, and to the Israelites, 
I will now subjoin a few considerations, confirming these 
conclusions.. 
1. 'The fact, that the Other Species of Polygamy— 
that in which one woman has two or more husbands— 
was unlawful in Israel, proves that the Original Law 
of Marriage, forbidding Polygamy, was in full force 
under the Levitical Code. That that peculiar species 
of Polygamy was unlawful in Israel, will doubtless be 
admitted ; yet, should it be denied, the proof is at hand. 
In Deut. xxiv. 1—4, it is said, that a wife, after she has. 
received a bill of divorcement from her husband, “ may 
go and be another man’s wife.” Of course, previous to 
her receiving such a bill, it was unlawful for her to go 
and be another man’s wife, i. e. 40 have two husbands 
at thesametime. But, if it was unlawful for a woman 
in Israel to have two husbands at the same time, some 
law had forbidden it. I then ask, What was that law 2 
—The Levitical Code contains a law, forbidding a mar- 
ried woman to have aduléerous intercourse with another 
man ; but it contains no law, prohibiting conjugal inter- 
course or connexion by marriage—-that is, no law, of 
which those whom I oppose can: here avail themselves. 
The prohibition, in Levit. xviii. 18, “ Neither shalt thou 
take a wife to her sister in her life-time, to vex her”— 
according to the construction of it, for which I propose 
to contend, in the ensuing Essay—Neither shalt thou 
take one wife to another, in her life-time, to vex her— 
does, indeed, expressly forbid a man to have two wives ; 
and therefore may be regarded as, by implication, for- 
bidding a woman to have two husbands. But this 
obviously cannot be alleged by those, who deny this 
construction. I callon Eye then, to point out the law, 


38 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. | 


which rendered the latter species of polygamy unlaw- 
ful; but this they cannot do, for no such law exists, 
except the Original Law of Marriage. That law, there- 
fore, was in force under the Levitical Code. But if that 
law forbad a woman to have two husbands ; with still 
greater certainty did it forbid aman to have two wives ; 
because its prohibitory clause affects men, expressly ; 
while it affects women only by implication. 'That 
clause is—not, “Therefore shall @ woman leave her 
father and mother and cleave unto her husband ;’* but— 
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and 
cleave unto his wife.” And, as we have seen that it 
forbids a woman to have two husbands, at once; a for- 
tiori therefore, does it forbid a man to have two wives at 
once. This fact then proves that the Original Law of 
Marriage, so far as it forbad polygamy, was in force in 
all its length and breadth under the Levitical Code. 

2. The same thing is evident from the fact, that Po- 
lygamy was expressly prohibited, by Moses, to the future 
kings of Israel. Deut. xvii. 17, “ Neither shall he (the 
future king) multiply wives unto himself; that his heart 
turn not away.” 

It has been publicly suggested by an individual not now 
in the desk, that the word mudl¢iply, has as extensive a 
meaning in this passage, as it has in the preceding verse— 
“But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause 
the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should 
multiply horses ”—It is said that, as the future monarch 
is not, by this verse, restricted to one horse ; so he is not, 
by the next, to one wife; and that he is clearly allowed 
to keep at least as many wives as horses. My only 
reply to this suggestion shall be this—The mind, which 


* If it had been, who would have questioned that it forbad a wo- 
man to have two husbands at once. 


ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 39 


could first engender such a.sentiment, and then charge it 
to the Spirit of God, shall receive it back again, untouched, 
into the pollution from which it came forth. 

The prohibition, given to the monarch to multiply 
wives, either had a definite meaning, and restricted him 
within given limits; or it had no meaning at all. If 
the Original Law of Marriage was in force in Israel, 
this prohibition had a definite meaning. If it were a 
fundamental. law of England, where polygamy is un- 
lawful ;—“'The king shall not multiply wives: unto 
himself ;”—it would clearly prohibit the king from mar- 
rying more than one wife ; for any increase above the 
authorized number, is multiplication ; and the same, 
on this supposition, was true in Israel. But if that law 
was not in force in Israel, I ask, What law limited the 
number of wives, which might be lawfully taken, either 
by king or subject. 

‘The Rabbinists indeed allege, that David had 14 wives 
and 18 concubines; and insist, because he was a good 
man, thatthis was thewltimatum, beyond which the mo- _ 
narch might not lawfully go. No one, however, at the 
present day, will pretend, that, by any enactment, the 
lawful number of the monarch’s wives is limited to two, 
or three, or to the Mohammedan number four, orto siz or 
eight, to ten or twenty. But if the lawful number was 
not definitely settled, the king might well ask the 
prophet, who suffered him to take twenty, and who came 
to reprove him because he was about to take the twenty- 
first,—“ What! is it multiplying wives to take twenty-one, 
when it is not multiplying them totake twenty! Ifthen 
this prohibition was not absolutely nugatory, and in ef- 
fect prohibited nothing ; the Original Law of Marriage 
was in force in ional; 

- If Polygamy was unlawful to the nation at large ; 


40 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


still there were the best reasons in the world, for recording 
a particular express prohibition of it to the future mo- 
narch. ‘The surrounding nations all practised polyga- 
my. Their kings had, each his haram; and each 
prided himself in the number of his wives-and concu- 
pines. The monarch of Israel was absolute, independ- 
ent of the nation whom he governed, and amenable only 
to God. Though the people at large had been forbidden 
to. practise polygamy, still, from the example of sur- 
rounding kings, from the power and wealth of the mo- 
narch, and the passions of the human breast, there was 
the strongest reason to fear that, notwithstanding the 
general law, he would “multiply wives unto himself,” 
and thus corrupt himself and the nation. In this point 
of view, the command appears most merciful; and the 
histories of Saul, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah 
and Ahab, prove, that it was most necessary ; for even this: 
additional and express command did not secure their obe- 
dience. 

This restriction on the king was certainly intended to 
have force and efficacy ; because it was a law of God. 
But we have seen, that, if it did not limit the king to 
one wife, it did not limit him a¢ all ; and of course had 
no binding force. ‘The king, then, was forbidden to 
practise polygamy, if the people were not. If then we 
suppose polygamy to have been lawful to the nation at 
large ; where was the propriety of forbidding it to the 
king? It did not lie in the fact that it was unlawful 
in itself ; for in itself it was as lawful to the monarch 
as to his subjects. The monarch was certainly as able, 
as his subjects, tomaintain numerous wives, and provide 
for them as he ought. The heart of the monarch was 
no more liable to be turned away, by the practice of po- 
lygamy, than the heart of a subject. I agree, “it hath 


ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 41 


cast down many wounded, yea many strong men have 
been slain by it ;” but, while this is the. best of all rea- 
sons for prohibiting it universally, it isa very bad one 
for confining the prohibition to kings. To prohibit the 
king from an innocent, and, if we may judge from the 
history of Saul, David, Solomon, and several. of their 
successors, a favouriée practice; when not only the neigh- 
bouring monarchs, but his own subjects were allowed to 
indulge in it; would have been to create an unnecessary 
and odious distinction. It was exhibiting him, in point 
both of actual privilege, and of claims to personal con- 
fidence, as below the level of the people at Jarge. It was 
in effect to say—“ Neither shall the king practise po- 
lygamy, because it will turn away his heart ; but all his 
subjects may practise it, because it will not turn away 
their hearts!” The fact, that he saw his princes, his 
nobles, and even his peasants, lawfully possessing all that 
heart could wish, while himself was limited to a single 
object ; would of course have prompted him, if not re- 
strained by religious principle, to the indulgence of wild 
and roving passion. Such a restriction, therefore, could 
not have been laid on the monarchs of Israel, without 
being also laid upon their subjects. 

3. If Polygamy was not forbidden by the Original 
Law of Marriage, to the Patriarchs and Israelites ; nei- 
ther is it forbidden under the Christian Dispensation. 
Polygamy has been supposed to be forbidden, in the New 
Testament, in the six following passages—Mat. v. 31, 
32; Mat. xix. 3—9; Mark x. 2—12; Luke xvi. 18; 
Ephesians v. 31; and Cor. vii. 1,2. The first five of 
these passages are all alike. ‘They are all founded on, 
and appeal to, the Original Law of Marriage, and merely 
explain the binding force of that law upon mankind: 
they forbid what that s/s and allow what that al- 


42 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


lowed ; and if that did not forbid Polygamy, neither do 
they. As to the passage in Corinthians, “ Now con- 
cerning the things ye wrote unto me,—It is good for a 
man not to touch a woman : Nevertheless, to avoid incon- 
tinence, let every man have his own wife, and let every 
woman have her own husband ;” I-remark, 1. That 
every man has his own wife, and every woman her own 
husband, as truly in polygamy as in marriage ; and 
2. That the Apostle expressly declares, that he speaks 
the paragraph of which this is a part, by permission, 
and not by commandment, and that it is himself that 
speaks it, and not the Lord. Ofcourse it is merely advi- 
sory ; and cannot be regarded as a Jaw restraining the 
rights of mankind in the article of marriage, within nar- 
rower limits than had previously existed for four thou- 
sand years, and binding by its authority the whole hu- 
man race. No alteration of a General Law of God was 
ever introduced by a passage in a writer, declared by 
himself to be mere private advice. The only remain- 
ing passages in the New Testament, alluding to this 
subject—L Tim. in. 2, “ A bishop must be the husband 
of one wife;” and 1 Tim. iii. 12, “Let the deacons be 
the husbands of one wife ;’—so far as they have any 
bearing upon it, seem to imply, that all except bishops 
and deacons may be the husbands of more than one 
wife ; and so direct did this implication seem to the dig- 
nitaries of the Greek Church, that, in order to rebut it, 
they enacted, that neither bishop nor deacon, if he had 
the misfortune to lose his wife, should ever be permitted 
tomarry asecond. ‘They allude, however, doubtless, to 
the fact, that some of the converted Heathens: had seve- 
ral wives; and enjoin that no one, who had more than 
one, should fill the office of bishop or deacon. If then 


ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 43 


polygamy was lawful, under the Patriarchal and Leviti- 
cal dispensations, it is equally so under the Christian. 

A. Wherever marriage is spoken of in the scriptures as 
a state, it is always spoken of as the union of one man 
with one woman; and in language utterly inconsistent 
with the supposition, that more than one of either sex 
could be lawfully united with one of the other. This is 
true, alike, of both Testaments.. A few examples will 
show the common current language of the whole Bible. 

Gen xxiv. 3, 4, “ And I will make thee swear unto 
me, by the LORD, the God of Heaven and the God of 
Karth, that thou shalt not take a wife to my son, of the 
daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell; but 
thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and 
take a wife unto my son Isaac.” Abrahaim’s design, in 
thus adjuring Eleazer, was to prevent Isaac from marry- 
ing a Canaanitish woman. ‘The fact that Isaac should 
marry a woman of Padan-Aram, he evidently regards 
as complete security, against the dreaded connection. 
But if Polygamy had been lawful, it would have been no 
security whatever. Isaac was heir to princely posses- 
sions, and could easily have maintained many. wives. 
In these circumstances, had Polygamy been lawful, his 
father, in order to prevent all hazard of connection with 
the women of Canaan, would have directed Eleazer to 
bring —not a wife, but—as many wives as Isaac would 
probably wish to include in his family establishmsnt. 
From the fact, that he regarded Isaac’s marriage with 
one wife of Padan-Aram as effectual security against 
future marriages with women of Canaan, it is evident, 
that Polygamy was not then regarded as lawful. 

Deut. xxviii. 54, 58, “His eye shall be evil towards 
the wife of his bosom.”—“ Her eye shall be evil towards 
the husband of her bosom.” 'These are a part of the 


44 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


curses, denounced against the Israelites as a nation, 
to take effect. upon them, during the long progress of 
their history, whenever they should become disobedient 
and rebellious. ‘The husband and wife here mentioned 
are any husband and wife, who should thus disobey. 
The language is accommodated to the actual laws and 
state of society in Israel, not only as they were in the 
age of Moses, but as they were to be in every succeed- 
ing age. It describes marriage, as it actually finds it, 
and finds it universally prevalent—as the union of one 
husband with one wife—as a union, in which the hus- 
band has the wife of his bosom; and the wife, the hus- 
band of her bosom. In a country, where a man may 
marry but one wife, this language has meaning ; but 
suppose that a Turk were threatened, that on the com- 
mission of a given offence, he should lose the wife of his 
bosom ; would he not instinctively ask, “which of them 
will you take ?—I have four!” Must not the law, in 
order to have point and exactness, threaten him with 
the loss—either of one of his wives, or—of the women 
of his haram 2? Here then Moses, or rather God him- 
self, when making laws relative to marriage, as it then 
existed, and as it would lawfully exist in Israel in 
successive generations, not only represents each hus- 
band as having one wife, and each wife as having one 
husband ; but uses language, which could have no 
meaning, in a country where Polygamy was general or 
lawful. 

Psalm exxvili. 3,“ Thy wife shall be as a fruitful 
vine, by the side of thy house: thy children, like olive- 
plants round about thy table.” The Israelites, probably 
more than any other people, regarded numerous children 
as ablessing. Thus, in the preceding Psalm, it is said— 
«Lo, children are an heritage from the Lord, as arrows 


ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. ; 45 


in the hands of amighty man. Happy is the man, that 
hath his quiver full of them.” _Thisidea is fully recog- 
nized, in the passage quoted above, in which the Psalm- 
ist is describing the happiness of the man, who-feareth 
the Lord. But, if. writing for a country, in which Polyg- 
amy was customary, instead of saying, “ Thy wife shall 
be a fruitful vine,’ he would have said, “Thy wives 
shall be as fruitful vines.” It would present no very 
flattering prospect toa good man, who had twenty wives, 
to tell him, that, as the reward of his fearing the Lord, 
one of them should be fruitful. “ What !”—he would 
instinctively rejoin, and with no little meaning,—“ and 
shall the other nineteen be barren ” 

Prov. v. 15, 18, 19 “ Drink waters out of thine own 
cistern, and running waters out of thine own well. Let 
thy fountain be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of thy 
youth. Let her be as the loving hind, and the pleas- 
ant roe; let Her breasts satisfy thee af all times, and 
be thou always ravished with her love.” Solomon tells 
us, that these are part of the instructions, which David 
his father gave him, when he was young, to regulate his 
conduct.* I admit, that David had numerous wives and 
concubines ; yet, as one of the inspired penmen, he has 
taught nothing but pure morality and exalted piety. 
I ask then every one, who has read the preceding direc- 
tions, whether they could have sense or meaning, if ad- 


* The address of David to Solomon begins Prov. iv. 4, in the middle 
of the verse, and is carried on in one continuous discourse, through 
that and the five following chapters: ending with the close of Chapter 
ix. This fact, I believe, has escaped the notice of Commentators. It 
is worthy of observation, as it refutes an argument, which has been 
derived from the abrupt commencement of Chapter x., to prove that 
Solomon did not write much of the latter part of the book. That 
abrupt commencement is owing to the fact, that the discourse of Seles 


mon is there resumed, 


wis > 


46 ” ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


dressed to a man, living where Polygamy was lawful 
and customary? Had they been actually addressed to 
an Israelitish nobleman, who, by divine permission, had 
married a haram of twenty wives; with what force - 
would he have replied in David’s own language-— 
“ Which of my cisterns or which of my wells, which of 
my fountains or which of my wives; with Adah or 
Zillah, with Abigail or Rachel, with Haggith or 
Maachah, with Hannah or Rebekah, with Achsah or 
Deborah, with Sarah or Bathsheba, with Milcah or 
Michal, with Anah or Delilah, with Mary or Ruth, or 
which? In short, could these directions be possibly 
obeyed by the man, who had so many other wives, 
beside the wife of his youth. Could her breasts satisfy 
him at al/ times, when, during most of his time, he was 
lawfully and necessarily devoting himself to the other 
women of his haram? Could he be always ravished 
with her love, when usually she was supplanted by her 
rivals? Would not obedience to these directions have 
been a gross abuse and injury to his other lawful wives ? 

Jer. v. 8, “ They were as fed horses, in the morning : 
every one neighed after his neighbour’s wife.” The 
prophet is here describing in glowing terms, the general 
lewdness of the Israelites, and their multiplied adulteries. 
No illustration of the subject could have been more forci- 
ble, than the image which. he actually presents; and 
Jeremiah can rarely be accused of letting his representa- 
tions lag behind the reality. Surely, then, if Polygamy 
had been customary, he would have said, “Every one 
neighed ”—not “after his neighbour’s wife,”---but “ after 
his neighbour’s wives,” or “his neighbour’s haram.” In 
a town, where each householder had as many wives as he 
could maintain, it would be no very striking proof of 
universal profligacy, that all the wives but one, in each 


ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. . 47 


family were not only unpolluted, but wn-neighed- 
after. 

Jer. vi. 11, “T will pour the fury of the Lord upon the 
_ children abromls and. upon the assembly of young men 
together; for even the husband with the wife shall be 
taken ; the aged with him that ‘is full of days.” As the 
prophet intends by this language. to denote the compre- 


hensive extent of the divine fury, had Polygamy been . 


lawful, he must have said,---“the husband with his wives.” 
He could not have intended to intimate that, under a 
most sweeping desolation, all he wives but one, in each 
family, should escape. 

Mal. ii. 14, “The Lord hath been witness between 
thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou 
hast dealt treacherously ; yet is she thy companion, and 
the wife of thy covenant. 'Therefore take heed to 
your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the 
wife of his youth !”—In this chapter Malachi obvi- 
ously intends to reprove the Israelites for their general 
infidelity to the marriage vow ; yet I appeal to the com- 
mon sense of every reader, that his language would 
have neither force nor meaning, if addressed to a nation 
of polygamists. Ifa Mohammedan priest were to read 
this reproof, in a Turkish mosque, it would not be in- 
telligible ; and were the book of Malachi to be read by 
a Turk, he would at once conclude, that, among the 
Jews, it was not lawful to have more than one wife. 

Math. xix. 29, “ And every one, that hath forsaken 
houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or 
wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall 
receive an hundred fold and shall inherit everlasting 


life.” 
Luke xiv. 26. “If any man come to me, and hate 


48 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and 
brethren and sisters, he cannot be my disciple.” 

These two passages were addressed to the Jews, as 
our Saviour found them, living under the laws of 
Moses. The conduct, to which this high reward is 
promised, is the cheerful surrendry of every thing dear 
and valuable, for the sake of. the Saviour. The word, 
used in each case, denotes the entireity of the sacrifice. 

Thus, brethren, and sisters, and children, and houses, 
and lands denote all one’s brethren, and sisters, and 
children; all one’s houses and lands ; since the sur- 
rendry of a part of any one kind would have been una- 
vailing, without a surrendry of the residue. Each word 
here used is intended, therefore, to express as many 
things of the given kind, as the persons addressed could 
be supposed to possess. Where they could have several, 
the plural is used; where only one, the singular. As 
they could have but one father, but one mother, and 
but one wife, each of these is in the singular ; as they 
could have more than one of each of the other things 
- mentioned—brethren, sisters, children, houses, lands, 
—they are all in the plural. Had Christ said, “If you 
forsake not your brother, and sister, and child, and 
house, and land,” the language would obviously have 
been defective ; for it would have implied that forsaking 
one brother, or sister, or child, or house, or one piece of land, 
was enough, and that.the remainder of each might be pre- 
ferredto Christ. Butwhen hesays, “Ifyou forsake not your 
Sather, and mother, and wife,” there is no such. defect ; 
because each word, though in the singular, is all of 
the kind, that any individual could possess or forsake. 
Surely a Jew could have no merit in preferring the 
Saviour to one wife, if he loved his other wives more 
than the Saviour. It is plainly impossible, therefore, 


ESSAY ON POLYGAMY, 49 


that Christ should have used this language, had he 
been surrounded by an assembly of polygamists. 

These passages area few, taken from a great’ num- 
ber found in every part of the Bible. They show the 
customary phraseology of the scriptural writers, and are 
susceptible of but one construction. They exhibit an 
account of lawful wedlock, as it actually existed in every 
period of biblical history, among the Patriarchs, the 
Israelites, and the Jews. The writer or speaker, in 
every instance, takes his countrymen and their mar- 
riages as he found them. Every reader will at once 
say, that such an account of the subject could not possi- 
bly have been written respecting a state of society, in 
which Marriage was Polygamy. It presupposes, that 
Marriage is in itself, and was, as it actually existed, the 
union of one man with one woman. It never explains 
the duties of a state of polygamy, nor supposes it to ex- 
ist. It is an account of Marriage, just as it exists in 
Christian countries, and utterly irreconcileable with 
such a state of Marriage, as exists in Turkey, and in 
Southern Asia. 

At the same time, the Bible does not contain a soli- 
tary example of an opposite use of language. The few 
instances of Polygamy, on record, are simply mentioned 
as evenis that occurred, and are recorded in precisely 
the same manner, as the sacred writers customarily re- 
cord other transgressions of law. 'Yo a fair unbiassed 
mind, this fact of itself will, I think, appear absolutely 
conclusive. 

We thus find, as the result of our inquiries, that the 
Original Law of Marriage forbad Polygamy to man- 
kind; that no repeal of that law is found in the Scrip- 
tures ; and that Polygamy was not lawful, either among 


the Patriarchs, or under the Levitical Code. 
5 


: |} 
50 «ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


There is, however, as we contend, one passage more 
relating to the subject, which we have not yet examined, 
—Lev. xviii. 18, “ Neither shalt thou take a wife to her 
sister, to vex er, to uncover her nakedness beside the 
other, in her life-time.”—This passage, it will be recol- 
lected, is regularly resorted to, to prove marriage with 
the sister of a deceased wife to be lawful. And when, 
in opposition to that construction, we contend that this 
passage is simply a prohibition of Polygamy, and is pre- 
cisely equivalent to-—Neither shalt thou take one wife 
to another in her life-time, to ver her--we are regu- 
larly met with the Objection, that Polygamy was actu- 
ally lawful among the Israelites, and of course that this 
construction is erroneous. ‘The other construction of 
the passage,—Neither shalt thou take a second wife, 
who is the sister of thy first wife, to vex her, to uncover 
her nakedness beside the other, in her life-time ; al- 
though thou mayest take one, who is not her sister, 
as that will not vex her; and her sister also, after 
her death—is, if correct, a full and: explicit permission 
of polygamy. 'This passage will be minutely examined, 
in the progress of the subsequent Essay ;.and when we 
come to the examination, I hope it will be distinctly re- 
membered, that the Scriptures (this one passage out of 
the question) furnish decisive evidence that Polygamy 
was unlawful; and that if the lawfulness of Polyga- 
my is to be proved, the evidence must be derived from 
this one passage alone. ‘Thus, we shall be able to ex- 
amine this much controverted text, on its own merits, 
and to investigate the Law of Incest, without entangling 
it with the lawfulness or unlawfulness of Polygamy. 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 


Tue Law of Incest was long supposed to be defini- 
tively settled. Under the care of the Israelitish Church, 
it remained unaltered for fifteen centuries, and under 
that of the Christian, for more than seventeen. ‘'T'o 
our American Legislatures belongs the honour of the 
discovery, that these Churches, doubtless from the love 
of supererogatory obedience so natural to man, sub- 
mitted, for more than three thousand years, to various 
restraints on their marriages, which were wholly unen- 
joined by the Law of God. Since this discovery, they 
have, to say the least, deserved no censure for not remov- 
ing these restraints, as soon as they could make them out 
to be supererogatory. 

The curious reader, in examining some of our Statute- 
books, will be struck with sundry nice distinctions, 
made between lawful and unlawful marriages. In va- 
rious instances, he will find, that a Mam is allowed to 
marry his wife’s sister, or niece, while a Woman is for- 
bidden to marry her husband’s brother, or nephew. In 
endeavouring to account for these distinctions, he may 
perhaps imagine, that the law-makers were guided by a 
Modern Notion—that a woman is more nearly re- 
lated to her husband than a man to his wife. 'This, 
however, could not have occasioned them, for the statutes, 
in which they are found, were made before the publi- 
cation of the Pamphlet, in which this notion was first 
promulgated. Their real origin is to be traced to the 


witty 


52 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


following facts; The Law-makers were exclusively 
Men :-—Men. usually wish to marry women who are 
younger than themselves:—Men commonly prefer 
maids to widows. A brother’s wife and an uncle's 
wife, to be marriageable, must of course be widows ; 
and the latter is usually older than her correlative, 
husband’s nephew ; but this is not the case with a wife's 
sister or a wife’s niece. Had the Law-makers been 
Women ;—as ladies are willing to marry men older 
than themselves, and do not refuse widowers when they 
cannot get bachelors ;—the popular feeling in the legis- 
latures would probably have been in favour of all four 
of the exemptions, and would doubtless have required a 
brother's wife and an uncle’s wife to be placed on as 
high ground as a wife’s sister and a wife’s niece. 'This 
operation of female views and sympathies on our mar- 
riage-acts, would have brushed-away several odious dis- 
tinctions-without-a-difference, would have made the stat- 
ute-books consistent with themselves, and would have 
put widows and widowers ona level. 

Since these innovations on the Law of incest, various 
marriages, long regarded as incestuous, have become 
common. ‘The instinctive horror, which the bare 
thought of such connections once excited, has too exten- 
sively given way to the sanction of law, and the tur- 
bulence of passion. 'Those whose only standard of 
action is the law of the land, and who regard every 
thing as right which is safe,—a description, which in- 
cludes the vast majority of every community,—have of 
course contracted them without a scruple. 'To such 
men, the marriage of a wife’s sister, if the wife have a 
younger sister; or, if not, of a wife’s niece, is the most 
convenient imaginable. A wife’s sister comes under 
the roof, and the parties are of course intimately ac- 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 53 


quainted, and often together. A present affection is al- 
ready their duty; anda future connection, under a change 
of circumstances, has become lawful. Conscience has 
been laid by the statute, and no longer “ holds the heart 
in chains against the seduction of beauty.” Perhaps no 
situation can be imagined, where, ceteris paribus, an 
embryo spark will so easily be struck, which at a conve- 
nient time will be fanned into a flame. She is present, 
also, at the critical moment ; and, by her sympathy and 
tenderness, quickens emotions of which she is appa- 
rently unconscious. 


“*Tis but a kindred string to move 
For pity melts the soul to love.”— 


The bereaved family, and particularly the parties in 
question, who are now, de facto, “the united head” of 
it, find themselves for a while—such are the customs of 
society—chiefly secluded from company; often alone 
together, solum cum sold, si non omnibus horis, saltem 
vespertinis, quando solitudo, tenebre, tristitia etiam, 
memoria, cupido—omnia flammis surgentibus favent ; et 
citius fide, etiam nocte silenti vix divulsos; and thus 
with less and less reluctance constrained to depend on 
each other for all that solaces and sweetens life. Long 
before they are aware, they have become mutually ne- 
cessary, and many months anterior to the time when the 
deposition of weeds is customary, they have made to each 
other a complete developement of what the actual state 
of things 7s, as well as a satisfactory demonstration of 
what it issoon to be. No courtship is so easy as this : It 
begins, they know not, they are afraid to know, when ; 
it is carried on, they know not, they are not willing to 
know, how ; it is completed, (all excepting the conclud- 
ing ceremony,) very often, without having been sus- 


5* 


54 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


pected, even. by those busy-bodies, who worm out and 
and publish every other affair of a similar nature. 

A few individuals, also, possessing minds more en- 
lightened, and a morality more elevated, have given 
to the marriage in question the authority of their exam- 
ple. A few have thrown around it “ the sanctity of their 
lawn” a few have enveloped it in “the purity of their 
ermine.” Some of these, doubtless, have done it igno- 
rantly, or hastily ; while others have first: investigated its 
lawfulness and then have hesitatingly ventured. But 
the investigation has usually been commenced because 
the affections were fastened, and the purpose formed ; 
and of course has been pursued with less exemption from 
prepossession and bias, than truth and fair-play would 
seem to require. The cool logic of the intellect is at best 
a feeble advocate, when opposed by the warm rhetoric of 
the affections. While the head is umpire, reason and 
argument will usually carry the day; but when the 
heart is on the bench, a single impulse will put to flight 
a whole army of syllogisms. Still, decisions made m 
such a forum are not to be regarded as precedents, or as 
entitled to all that authority which is allowed to ad- 
judged cases, in our courts of law. 

A few of the more enlightened, also, have, without 
this personal bias, arrived at the same conclusion. Some 
in this, as in all other cases of mere morality wncon- 
nected with loss and gain, have, without examination, 
taken the popular side of the question. Others, resolv- 
ing to throw off the shackles of prejudice and prescription, 
andaided by the writings of unprincipled Europeans, have 
adopted loose and licentious notions respecting Marriage. 
Among these notions are the following:—That marriage 
is not an institution of God, but a mere creature of muni- 
cipal law :—T hat the marriage-contract is merely a civil 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 55 


contract; liable, like every other contract, to be varied, 
dissolved, and renewed, at the pleasure of the parties :--- 
And that, in enacting laws respecting it, the Legislature 
is not bound to regard the Law of God at all, but merely 
its own views of the good of the state. 

The effect of these innovations on the Law of incest, 
has been,—to unsettle the minds of the community on 
the whole subject, to introduce a loose and vague scep- 
ticism with regard to the guilt of Incest in all cases 
whatsoever, and to leave a painful uncertainty, as to 
the actual extent of the alterations, to which the Original 
Law has been subjected. The people at large rarely 
consult the Statute-book. Few of them, so far as my 
observation extends, appear to be aware, that inroads 
have been made upon the Law of incest by a legislative 
act ; yet, perceiving that marriages are actually cele- 
brated, which are among those prohibited at the end of 
the Old Testament, they conclude that the Law of in- 
cest has grown obsolete. Knowing propinguity* to be 
the only ground and rule of Incest, they naturally place 
all marriages, where the degree of propinquity is the 
same, on a level. The consequence has been, that 
marriages, still pronounced incestuous by the Statute- 
book, have been extensively contracted. The parties 
have thus ignorantly exposed themselves to an infamous 
punishment, and their children to the loss of their in- 
heritance, and to a disgraceful epithet under circum- 
stances peculiarly humbling and painful. I have known 
two instances of marriage between an uncle and niece, 
and have heard of one between a half-brother and 
sister. So general, however, is the impression, that 
this uncertainty is fairly attributable to the Legislature, 


* By the word propinquity, is intended nearness in general: by af- 
finity, nearness by marriage: and by consanguinity, nearness by blood. 


56 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


and to the zigzag plight of the Statutes; that Incest 
passes unmolested and unnoticed. Not less general 
perhaps is the impression, that Incest, except between 
lineal relations, cannot be prosecuted to effect. These 
facts should teach us to “leave off” the revisal of the 
Law of God, ‘“ before it be meddled with.” 

In investigating the subject of Incest, the Divine Law 
is our only directory ; for that law alone is universally 
binding on the Human Race. If that law prohibits 
Incest, it is a sin; if it does not, it is innocent. 

The most natural and obvious mode of conducting 
this discussion, would be—simply to ascertain, What 
marriages are pronounced incestuous by the Scrip- 
tures. 'This course I would gladly take, were it possi- 
ble; but those, who advocate innovations on the Ancient 
Law of incest, have supported their scheme by very dif- 
ferent arguments. Some of them contend that the in- 
cest, prohibited in the Scriptures, is merely incestuous 
fornication or aduliery, and that no marriage can 
be incestuous ;—others, that consanguinity is the sole 
scriptural ground of Incest, and that it cannot exist in 
any case of mere affinity ;—others, that the Levitical 
prohibitions were intended merely to preserve the natural 
supremacy of the husband ;—others, that the Levitical 
Law prohibits marriage with certain women, while they 
are the wives of other men, but not after they become 
widows ;—others, that the Law of Incest was either 
merely ceremonial, or merely the national law of Israel, 
and in neither case binding on us ;—others, that Incest 
is merely a positive offence, and therefore not a crime in 
its own nature ;—others, that we are subject to no Law 
of Incest whatever, but that all marriages are lawful ;— 
others, that marriage with a wife’s sister is authorized 
in the Scriptures, and is in itself particularly proper ;— 


Abe ./ 2 ‘ab 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 57 


and others, that it is in vain to amend the laws of any 
one State, and leave those of the other States as they are. 

The subject is, however, of so much intrinsic. im- 
portance, as to justify any length of discussion, which 
it fairly involves. If Incest be now a sin, it is unques- 
tionably a sin of no light magnitude. It was one of 
nine crimes, for which the Canaanites were exterminated, 
and for which the Israelites were threatened with ex- 
termination. Under the Levitical Law, those guilty of 
it were punished with death. Few sins are spoken of 
in the Scriptures as equally offensive to the eye of God. 
If then it be now a sin, and if many of the marriages 
now customary in this country are incestuous ; it is most 
desirable that its guili and danger should be fully ex- 
posed ; and the degrees, within which marriage is pro- 
hibited, exactly ascertained. 

The whole discussion involves but Two Questions : 
— What was the Levitical Law of Incest ?—Is that 
Law binding on us ? 


TI. Waar was THe LeviricaL Law or kv- 

CEST ! 

‘The answer to this question will lead us to consider, 

I. THe various SecTIONS oF THE LAW ITSELF. 

The following is the whole Law of Incest, as pro- 
mulgated to the Israelites.* 

Lev. xviii. 6. None of you shall approach to any, 
that are near of kin to him: I am the Lorp. 

7. The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of 
thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother : 
thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 


' * The examination of Leviticus xviii. 18, will be pursued, immedi- 
ately after the Levitical Law of Incest has been settled. 


58 THE LAW OF INCEST: 


8. The nakedness of thy father’s wife, shalt thou not 
uncover : it is thy father’s nakedness. 

9. The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy 
father, or the daughter of thy mother, whether she be 
born at home or abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt 
not uncover. 

10. The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy 
daughter’s. daughter, their nakedness thou shalt not un 
cover: for theirs is thine own nakedness. 

11. The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter ; 
begotten of thy father, she is thy sister: thou shalt not 
uncover her nakedness. 

12. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy 
father’s sister: she is thy father’s near kinswoman. 

13. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy 
mother’s sister: she is thy mother’s near kinswoman. 

14. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy 
father’s brother: thou shalt not approach to his wife: 
she is thy aunt. 

15. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy 
daughter-in-law: she is thy son’s wife: thou shalt not 
uncover her nakedness. 

16. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedneess of thy 
brother’s wife : it is thy brother’s nakedness. 

17. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a wo- 
man and her daughter; neither shalt thou take her 
son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover 
her nakedness: for they are her near kinswomen : it is 
wickedness. 

29. For whosoever shall commit any of these abomi- 
nations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut 
off from among their people. 

Leviticus xx. 11. And the man, that lieth with his 
father’s wife, hath uncovered his father’s nakedness : 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 59 


both of them shall surely be put to death: their blood 
shall be upon them. 

12. And if a man shall lie with his daughter-in-law ; 
both of them shall surely be put to death: they have 
wrought confusion : their blood shall be upon them. 

14. And if a man take a wife and her mother; it is 
wickedness : they shall be burnt with fire, both he and 
they : that there be no wickedness among you. 

17. And if-a man shall take his sister, his father’s 
daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her naked- 
ness, and. she see his nakedness, it is a wicked thing, 
and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people : 
he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness: he shall bear 
his iniquity. 

19. And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy 
mother’s sister, nor of thy father’s sister: for he un- 
covereth his near kin; they shall bear their iniquity. 

-20. And if a man shall lie with his uncle’s wife, he 
hath uncovered his uncle’s nakedness: they shall bear 
their sin: they shall die childless. 

21. And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is 
an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother’s 
nakedness : they shall be childless. 

Deut. xxii. 30. A man shall not take his father’s 
wife, nor discover his father’s skirt. 

Deut. xxvii. 20. Cursed be he, that lieth with his 
father’s wife, because he uncovereth his father’s skirt. 

22. Cursed be he, that lieth with his sister, the 
daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. 

23. Cursed be he, that lieth with his mother-in-law. 

Having thus recited all the various Sections of the 
Levitical Law of Incest, we are led, in answering the 
question, What was that Law ? to consider, 


60 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


Il. Tue PrincreLes, oN WHICH THE LAW OF 
INCEST IS TO BE INTERPRETED. 

As these have occasioned much controversy, and need 
to be settled, we shall examine some of them at length. 

1. The Intercourse here prohibited is Sexual Inter- 
course. 

This will doubtless be admitted. If not; the phrases 
used in the Law to explain it: To approach to— To 
uncover the nakedness— To take, and— To lie with: 
place this point beyond controversy. 

ur. The Four Phrases used to designate this Inter- 
course have one and the same meaning. This too will 
probably be conceded ; but, if not, the proof is at hand. 
The first three of the phrases occur in Ley. xviii. ; the 
last three in Lev. xx.; the second and third in Deut. 
xxii.; the second and fourth in Deut. xxvii. 

In Lev. xvii. 6, which is the General Summary of 
all the particular prohibitions, the prohibited intercourse 
is pointed out by the phrase—to approach to. In the 
particular prohibitions following, all included in the Gen- 
eral Summary, this prohibited intercourse is pointed out 
by the phrases---to wncover the nakedness, to take, and to 
lie with. 'Yhe first phrase therefore has the same mean- 
ing with each of the other three ; and they of course 
with each other. Again; in Leviticus xviii. 14, the 
phrase—to uncover the nakedness is explained by the 
phrase to approach to ; in Lev. xx. 11, by the phrase— 
to lie with ; and in Lev. xx. 21, by the phrase éo take. 
These four phrases then, as used in this Law, have the 
same identical meaning. . 

ut. ‘The Sexual Intercourse, here prohibited, is every 
kind of sexual intercourse ; but especially that of mar- 
riage. 

‘1 his will be evident from the following considerations : 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 61 


1. From the Direct Meaning of the phrases employed 
to describe it. ‘There is obviously nothing in either, 
which limits its application to fornication and adultery, 
rather than to marriage. Thus the man, who has con- 
jugal intercourse with his sister, or his brother’s wife, as 
fully and inevitably approaches to her, takes her, 
uncovers her nakedness, and lies with her, as the man, 
who commits fornication or adultery with her. The 
very terms of the prohibition, therefore, include every 
species of Sexual Intercourse. 

2. From the Use of these phrases in the Scriptures a 
large. 

(1.) To approach to, occurs no where but in Lev. xviii. 
6 and 14; both of which are now under discussion. 

(2.) To uncover the nakedness, is used in three 
instances, to denote conjugal intercourse, Lev. xviii. 18, 
1 Sam. xx. 30, and Isaiah lvii. 8. In two instances, it 
refers to unlawful intercourse, Ezek. xvi. 36, and Ezek. 
xxill. 18. The phrase is therefore general. 

(3.) To take, in Hebrew 799, when connected with 
TWN, a woman, is the popeontliee Hebrew phrase for 
to marry a@ re To take, used absolutely, denotes 
the same thing: Gen. xxxiv. 9, 16, “And ¢ake our 
daughters unto you :—and we will take your daughters 
unto us.” Deut. xx. 7, “ Hath betrothed a wife, and 
hath not taken her.” 1 Chron. xxii. 22, “ And their 
brethren the sons of Kish took them.” The instances 
of this kind are numberless. The only apparent excep- 
tion to this use is in Ezek. xvi. 32, “ But as a wife that 
committeth adultery, that taketh strangers instead of her 
husband.” Here however, fo take, is used with refer- 
ence to its connection with her husband, (that taketh 
not her husband, but strangers,) and not indepen- 
dently of its reference to MATS: The phrase fo take, 


62 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


therefore, is in all instances used with reference to mar- 
riage, and in all but one denotes ¢o marry. 

4. To lie with denotes every, species of sexual inter- 
course : 

(1.) Marriage, Gen. xxx. 15, 16, Num. v. 20, 2 
Sam. xi. 11. 

(2.) Fornication, Exod. xxii. 16, Deut. xxii. 23, 28. 

(3.) Adultery, Gen. xxxix.7, Lev. xviii. 20, Num. 
v. 20. 

(4.) Rape, Deut. xxii. 25, 2 Sam. xin. 14. 

, (5-) Incest, Gen. xix. 32, 34. 

(6.) Sodomy, Lev. xviii. 22, Lev. xx. 15. 

(7.) Bestiality, Lev. xviii. 23, Lev. xx. 15. 

(8.) Intercourse generally, Lev. xv., passim., 
Judges xxi. 11. 

When used without any thing, in the phraseology or 

the story, to qualify or limit its meaning, this phrase is 
always general: denoting any and every species of 
sexual intercourse. 
_ From the scriptural use of these four phrases, there- 
fore, it is evident, that these prohibitions are not limited 
to incestuous fornication or adultery, but include mar- 
riage also; and from the use of the phrase to take, it is 
clear that incestuous marriage is the intercourse especially 
prohibited ; the declared unlawfulness of that, involving 
of course, and a fortiori, the unlawfulness of incestu- 
ous fornication and adultery. 

3. From the Meaning of those phrases in the Law 
Itself. 

Lev. xviii. 18, Neither shalt thou take a wife to her 
sister, to vex her, to. uncover her nakedness beside the 
other, in her life-time.* 

17, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a 


* Those whom I oppose insist that this is a part of the Law of incest. 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 63 


woman and her daughter: neither shalt thou take her 
son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover 
her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen : it is 
wickedness. 

Ley. xx. 14, And if a man take a wife and her 
mother it is wickedness. 

The first of these passages has received two different 
interpretations: both agreeing that the prohibited inter- 
course is Marriage: but the one, regarding the pas 
sage as prohibiting Polygamy, and the other, Incest. 
The first of these interpretations is, Jf thou hast a 
wife, thou shalt not marry another wife until after 
her death, but then thou mayest, 'The second inter- 
pretation is, If thou hast a wife, thou shalt not marry 
her sister until after her death for it will vex her ; 
although thou mayest marry another woman, for that 
will not vexher; and after her death her sister also. 
Now if the intercourse here forbidden is not mairiage, 
but fornication or adultery ; then the prohibition, accord- 
ing to the first interpretation, will read thus, Jf thou 
hast committed fornication or adultery with one 
woman, thou shalt not afterwards commit fornica- 
tion or adultery with another woman, during her 
life-time, for it will vex her ; but after her death thou 
mayest. "This rule would precisely accommodate Mod- 
ern Italy. According to the second interpretation, it 
will read thus, If thou hast committed fornication or 
adultery with one woman, thou shalt not commit for- 
nication or adultery with her sister, until after her 
death, for it will vex her, although thou may- 
est commit fornication or adullery with a woman, 
who is not her sister, for that will not vex her ; and, 
after her death, with her sister also. 

The second of these passages, on the supposition that 


64 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


marriage is not here prohibited, will read thus, Jf thove 
hast committed fornication or adultery with @ 
woman, thou shalt not afterwards commit either with 
her daughter, or her grand-daughter: for they are 
her near kinswomen. 

The third of these passages, on the same supposition, 
will read thus, And if aman shall commit fornication 
or adultery with a woman and her mother, it is wick- 
edness. 

A construction, involving these consequences, will not 
be seriously contended for, as a valid construction of a 
law of God. 

4. From the Language of one Section of the Law, 
compared with the Language of a subsequent Statute, 
partially and conditionally repealing it. 

‘The Section of the Law here referred to is Lev. xx. 21, 
“ And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an 
unclean thing.” ‘The partially and conditionally repeal- 
ing Statute isin Deut. xxv. 5,10. It was made with a 
special reference to the Levitical law of genealogies and 
descents. It directs a man, in the given circumstances, 
“to go in unto the wife of his deceased brother, and 
take her to him to wife ;” and then says, “ And if he 
like not to take his brother’s wife,” &c.- Vo take, and 
to take to wife,in the Repealing statute, then have 
one meaning ; and no one will deny that ¢o take has the 
same meaning, both in the Hnacting, and Repealing, 
statutes. It means therefore fo take to wife, in both. 

5. From the Interpretation always put upon these 
phrases, by the Israelites. Throughout the whole of 
their history, so far as that history is recorded, the Isra- 
elites uniformly regarded the prohibition as a prohibition 
of marriage. ‘They were certainly not inclined to works 
of supererogation, and doubtless may he regarded as best 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 65 


acquainted with the drift of their own laws, and as the 
best interpreters of their language. 

6. From the Interpretation always put upon these 
phrases by Christian churches and governments. They 
have uniformly regarded this prohibition as a prohibi- 
tion of Marriage-—We have thus a uniform construc- 
tion of the law for more than three thousand years. 

7. If this prohibition be not a prohibition of incestuous 
Marriage, no marriages are incestuous; because none are 
prohibited, except by this law. Ofcourse itis lawful to mar- 
ry a mother, or daughter, a sister or grand-daughter. 
And as Polygamy was, in the view of those whom I oppose, 
lawful in Israel, an Israelite might lawfully have had his 
srand-mothers and mother, and daughters, and sisters, 
and grand-daughters as his wives, at the same time. 

8. If marriage, between persons within the speci- 
fied degrees, is not unlawful; then fornicution, between 
persons within those degrees, is not more unlawful, than 
between strangers. By the Levitical law, the man, 
guilty of fornication with a woman not near of kin to 
him, was compelled to marry her, provided her father 
wished it; but, if not, he was obliged to pay to the 
father a sum of money, equal to what her marriage-por- 
tion would by law have been. By the Law of incest, 
fornication with one near of hin, for example with a 
sister, was punished with death. I then ask, why is 
fornication with a sister more criminal than with a 
stranger, if marriage with a sister is as lawful as with a 
stranger? It is not owing to difference of propingut- 
ity ; for it is identically the same in marriage, as in for- 
nication. It is not owing to the fact, that there is sex- 
ual intercourse between a brother and sister; for that 
exists in both cases. Neither is it owing to the fact that 
the intercourse is dai ak ; for it is as truely and as 


66 ~ THE LAW OF INCEST. 


fully so with a stranger, as with a sister. Incestuous 
fornication in itself, therefore; involves no more turpi- 
tude’ than that between strangers. 

But it will be said that, although the fornication in 
the two cases was equally criminal, yet a severer punish- 
ment was necessary for that which was incestuous, to 
prevent the continual occurrence of it in families. 

This account of the subject is wholly inconsistent 
with the Language of the Law. 'The intercouse with 
a sister, as well as with every other kinswoman, prohi- 
bited in the law, is called “a wickedness,” “an abomi- 
nation,” “an abominable custom ;” and is spoken of as 
one of the crimes, for which the land of Canaan vomited 
out its inhabitants. But this is not said of ordinary for- 
nication, 

In incestuous fornication, also, detection was almost 
of course certain, whereas in incestuous adultery it was 
exceedingly difficult; yet the punishment of adultery, 
whether incestuous or ordinary, was equally severe ; 
while that of fornication, if incestuous, was death, and 
only a fine, if it was not incestuous. This immense 
difference could not have existed, in two cases of equal 
criminality, where detection trode closely on the heels 
of transgression. 

The scheme alleged, also, would have been wholly 
incomplete. The language of the Law of incest, thus 
interpreted, was: You may marry your sister, your 
daughter, or your mother, as innocently as a stran- 
ger. If you commit fornication with a stranger, 
you shall be fined. Fornication with your sister, or 
with those near of kin, is no more criminal than 
with a stranger ; yet there is greater danger that 
you will commit it. _ Therefore, if you do, you shall 
be put to death.—No law, speaking such a language, 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 67 


could possibly answer its object. Let the consciences of 
men be once satisfied, that sexual intercourse, as such, 
with their nearest connections, is no more criminal 
than with strangers; and incest will become equally 
common with fornication and adultery. No matter 
what laws are made, or what punishments threatened ; 
if you remove the consciousness of deep criminality, you 
also remove, under any government not completely des- 
potic, the possibility, and the dread, of punishment; for 
it is only the enormous guilt of particular crimes, which 
leaves the human conscience satisfied, when exemplary 
punishment is inflicted. 

Why is not the crime of Incest now prevalent? Why 
are our houses pure, and our families innocent? It is 
because the Law of God has placed a guard against the 
human passions, in that strong sense of guilt, in that 
instinctive horror at the bare thought of sexual inter- 
course with our near connections, which is impressed on 
our minds with the force of a second nature. “'This 
restraint breaks down every propensity to incestuous 
commerce, and stifles those inclinations, which nature 
for wise purposes has implanted in our breasts, at the 
approach of the other sex. It holds the mind in chains 
against the seductions of beauty. It is a moral feeling, 
in perpetual opposition to human infirmity. It is like 
an angel from heaven, placed to guard us against pro- 
pensities that are evil. It is that warning voice, which 
enables you to embrace your daughter, however lovely, 
without feeling that she is of a different sex. It is that 
which enables you, in the same manner, to live famil- 
iarly with your nearest female relations, without those 
desires which are natural to man.”* Remove this sense 


* Lord_Erskine. 


68 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


of guilt, and families are dissolved. Children, instead 
of finding a perpetual home under the parental roof, 
would at an early age be banished from its threshold. 
The sister could not approach her brother without fear 
of impurity. The father would find a rival in every 
son; and the mother, in every daughter. 

9. If the Law of incest did not forbid incestuous mar- 
riage, it was useless. 

The Israelites had two general laws, forbidding for- 
nication and adultery in all cases—as well with stran- 
gers as with relations. What necessity then was there 
of particular statutes, forbidding them with relatives. 
It may be said that the punishment of these offences, 
when incestuous, is more severe. But this is not true 
of adultery. When, therefore, it is said, Leviticus xx. 
11, “He that committeth adultery with his neighbour's 
wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put 
to death ;’—why add, “And the man.that lieth with 
his father’s wife, both of them shall surely be put to 
death ;” as well as numerous sections of a similar cha- 
tacter; if the latter be mere prohibitions of adultery. 
What would be thought of the wisdom of a legislature, 
which should enact a similar statute with regard to any 
other crime: for example, that of Horse-stealing — 
“ He, who steals the horse of any person, shall be im- 
prisoned three years.—He, who steals his father’s horse, 
shall be imprisoned three years.—He, who steals his 
brother’s horse, shall be imprisoned three* years.—He, 
who steals the horse of his father’s brother, shall be im- 
prisoned three years :”——and so on, through a succession of 
thirty-three relatives? Is it not, then, equal folly to enact, 
with regard to adultery—“ He, who commits adultery 
with any woman, shall be put to death.— He, who com- 
mits adultery with his mother, shall be put to death,— 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 69 


He, who commits adultery with his brother’s wife, shall 
be put to death.—He, who commits adultery with his 
father’s brother’s wife, shall be put to death,”—and so 
on through an equal succession ? Fd 

10. If the Law of incest did not prohibit incestuous 
Marriages, its only effect was to weaken the force of the 
General Statute respecting adultery. Every thing is 
lawful, which is not prohibited by some law ; and every 
thing is lawful, so far as a given law is concerned, 
which that law does not prohibit. And the more par- 
ticular and circumstantial the terms of a penal law are, 
as the prohibition of the given offence is less general, so 
the stronger is the implication that the conduct under 
different circumstances is lawful. A law, forbidding for- 
nication with females under twenty years of age, and 
assigning their age as the ground of the prohibition, 
would give rise to a strong implication, that with those 
who were older it was lawful. 

The bare recitation of several of the prohibitions in 
question, altered to adapt them to the scheme which, I 
oppose, will set the subject in a convincing light. 

None of you shall commit adultery with any that are 
near of kin to him. 

Thou shalt not commit adultery with thy mother ; for 
she is thy mother: thou shalt not commit adultery with 
her. 

Thou shalt not commit adultery with thine uncle’s 
wife; for she is thine aunt. 

Thou shalt not commit adultery with thy daughter- 
in-law ; for she is thy son’s wife. 

Thou shalt not commit adultery with thy brother’s 
wife ; for she is thy brother’s wife. 

Thou shalt not commit adultery with a woman and 
her sister, during her life-time, 


70° THE LAW OF INCEST. S 


Thou shalt not commit adultery with a woman and. 
her daughter, nor with her grand-daughter ; for they are 


her near kinswomen. at 
nd if a man commit adultery with a woman and her 
mother, it is wickedness. 7% 


Who does not see, from bare inspection, that the 
limitation of the prohibition to these cases of propinquity, 
with the regular assignment of the propinquity, in each — 
case, as the reason why the connection is wrong, and 
why it is prohibited, carries with it to the mind an al- 
most irresistible implication, that where propinquity did 
not exist, such connection was lawful. Is any one 
ready to charge such a mode of legislation on God ? 

11. The Law of incest, established in the Koran, fur- 
nishes a striking commentary upon the gross licentious- 
ness of the opposite interpretation. Mohammed had 
the Arabic Translation of the Old Testament, and often 
made use of it in writing the Koran. In the fourth 
chapter of that. work, he says, “ Marry not women,* 
whom your fathers have had to wife, for this is un- 
cleanness, and an abomination, and an evil way. 
Ye are forbidden to marry your mothers, and your 
daughiers, and your sisfers, and your aunts both on 
the father’s and on the mother’s side, and your bro- 
ther’s daughters, and your sister’s daughters, and 
your wives’ mothers, and your daughiers-in-law, 
and the wives of your sons, and ye are also forbidden 
to take to wife two sisiers.”t ‘This, as far as it ex- 


* As Mahommed was legislating for polygamists, he mentions each 
female relative in the plural. 


T It might be well for the Legislature of New-York to compare this 
Law of Mohammed with their own Law of incest of Jan. Ist, 1830. 
The Law of Mohammed forbids a man to marry not only his lineal fe- 
malo relatives, both ascending and descending, but his sister, his aunt 


THE LAW OF INCEST. > A 


tends, is substantially a repetition of the Levitical Law 
of incest, accommodated, however, to a state of polyga- 
my, and is in terms a prohibition of incestuous mar- 
riage. It will not be-contended that Mohammed was 
influenced by any violent bigotry against licentiousness. 
Yet he had too much integrity to foist such an inter- 
| pretation, as that which [I am opposing, on the Old 'Tes- 
‘tament, and too much purity to enact such a law, as 
that which is here charged on the Law-Giver oF 
IsRAEL. 


I have been led to discuss this point, at greater length 
than some of my readers may regard as necessary, be- 
cause the advocates for one of the marriages long con- 
sidered unlawful, when driven from a few of their first 
positions, resort usually to this--that no marriage is 
incestuous ;—and the most discerning of their number 


and his niece—relations by consanguinity—and his father’s wife, his wife’s 
mother, his wife’s sister, his wife’s daughter, and his son’s wife—relations 
by affinity ; whereas the law of New-York forbids him to marry none 
but his lineal female relatives and his sister. It is worthy of observa- 
tion, also, that Cicero, (Orat. pro Cluentio,) speaking of the mother of 
Cluentius, thus characterizes her marriage with her son-in-law: “O 
mulieris scelus incredibile, et preter hance unam in omni vita inaudi- 
tum!” Is it not passing strange that a Christian Legislature, in its mar- 
riage-laws, should have exhibited a degree of licentiousness, of which 
the licentious prophet of Arabia would have been ashamed ; and should 
have sanctioned numerous marriages, one of which—that with a wife’s 
mother,—the Roman Orator, himself a Heathen, pronounces “an incre- 
dible wickedness, until then unknown.” Are the good people of the 
State of New-York generally aware that, in their State, it is lawful for 
a man to marry his aunt and his niece, by blood; as well as his father’s 
wife, his son’s wife, his wife’s mother, his wife’s daughter, and his wife’s 
sister: all forbidden even by Mohammed, and several of them by the 
laws of Heathen Rome? Has the possession of the Bible carried us 
downward, on the scale of moral elevation, far below the footing of 
Mohammed and his followers, and even below that occupied by the 
more decent Heathens, and left us almost on the level of the ancient 
Canaanites. 


72 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


take this position in the outset. The evidence actually 
exhibited will, I flatter myself, satisfy every reader, that 
the.Law of incest as certainly forbad marriage, between 
the various correlatives whom it mentions, as every other 
species of sexual intercourse. if 

IV. The Ground of Incest in the Levitical Law is as 
truly Affinity, as Consanguinity. . 

To those, who have read that Law, an apology seems 
due, for attempting to prove so plain a point. Yet, in 
most discussions of this subject, it is denied. If, then, 
the reader will turn back to the Law itself, he will see 
that the marriages prohibited in Lev. xviii. 8, 14, 15, 
16, and 17; Lev. xx. 11, 12, 14, 20, and 21; Deut. 
xxii. 30; and Deut. xxvii. 20, 23; are every one of 
them, cases of affinity. Under a subsequent head, I 
have examined at length what marriages are forbidden 
by the Law of incest. It will there be found that of 
the marriages expressly forbidden, six are cases of con- 
sanguinity, and eleven of affinity. 

But it has been objected that the Punishment, de- 
nounced against incestuous marriages in cases of affin- 
tty, is less severe, than in cases of consanguinity, and 
of course, that the guilt is less. Until it could be shown 
that we have a right to incur some degree of guilt ; this 
objection, if it were true, would not be regarded as valid. 
But it is wholly untrue. In Leviticus xvill. seventeen 
express cases of Incest are enumerated; including 
eleven of affinity, and six of consanguinity : together 
with the crimes of polygamy, (as we suppose,) unclean- 
ness, adultery, sodomy, bestiality and idolatry. After 
this enumeration, the Divine Lawgiver announces his 
own views of all these crimes without discrimination, in 
the following remarkable language: “ Defile not ye 
yourselves in any of these things; for in all these the 


$; “> 4 


THE LAW OF INCEST: et 


‘nations were defiled, which I cast out-before you. And 
the land is defiled; therefore do I visit the iniquity 
_ thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her in- 
habitants. Ye shall, therefore, keep my statutes and 
my judgments, and shall not commit any of these 
abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor 
any stranger that sojourneth among you; that the 
land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it 
spued out the nations that were before you !”—This 
language is applied to all the crimes recited above with- 
out distinction,—to incest, as truly asthe rest, and to 
the eleven cases of affinity, as truly as to the six of con- 
sanguinity. Let us now hear the Punishment de- 
nounced against them all :—“ For whosoever shall com- 
mit any of these abominations, even the souls that com- 
mit them, shall be cut off from among their people. 
Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye com- 
mit not any of these abominable customs, which were 
committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves 
therein: I am the Lorp your God.”—Death, then, is 
here threatened in every case of Incest: as well of 
affinity, as of consanguinity. No language could be 
more explicit or universal; none could more strongly 
indicate supreme loathing and abhorrence. 

The 20th chapter of Leviticus enumerates the crimes 
just recited ; and among others eleven express cases of 
Incest: seven of affinityiand four of consanguinity. 
In this chapter, the Punishment of these crimes is de- 
nounced, not in one general threatening at the close, 
but against each individual crime as it is mentioned. 
In ¢wo of consanguinity, and five of affinity, death is 
threatened in so many words. In éwo of consanguinity 

with a father’s sister, and a mother’s sister—it is 
said, “they shall bear their iniquity ;” which uniformly 
f 


74° THE LAW OF INCEST. 


denotes they shall bear its punishment, which we 
have seen was death. In one of affinity—with an 
uncle's wife, it is said, “they shall bear their sin, they 
shall die childless.” In the other of affinity—with a 
brother's wife—it is said, “It is an unclean thing, 
they shall be childless.” 

It is insisted that, in these two cases, the realities 
was not Death, but Perpetual Sterility ; and, in sup- 
port of this position, the following singular course of 
argumentation has been pursued :—“ Suppose one of 
the offending parties, the man for instance, to have been 
previously married, and to have had children: If 
the threatening, that the offending parties should die 
childless, meant, that they should be capitally punished, 
then, in order that the threatening might be executed, 
the children must have been put to death before their 
parents. Can it then be, that the lives of the innocent 
children of the former marriage were to be shortened, 
because the father had committed incest ?”—The diffi- 
culty with this argument is, that it may be made to 
recoil upon him who uses it. As the lives of the sup- 
posed children of an imagined previous marriage were 
not to be shortened, they would of course live out their 
natural lives; and as the parents were to die childless, 
they of course were destined to outlive these children, 
as well as those of the second marriage. But children, 
usually and in the order of nature, outlive their parents. 
The lives of the parents thus offending were therefore 
to be protracted to a very unusual length. Of course 
the threatening, “they shall die childless,” was merely 
a threatening, “that their days should be very long, 
in the land, which the Lord their God had given them !” 
To say the least, this was a new, and to most offenders 
must have been a very popular, punishment; and Paul’s 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 76 * 


remark relative to the Fifth Commandment, if slightly 
varied, may be applied to these two Sections of the Law, 
with still stronger emphasis—T hat these. are the first 
and only Threatenings with promise. 

This argument need not be further.exposed. I will 
only add, that the punishment of Perpetual Sterility 
could not have been executed, without a constant stand- 
ing miracle-—The real meaning of this threatening is 
obvious. 'The word “ childless” has no reference to the 
issue of any former marriage; and the threatening 
means, that the offending parties shall be cut off imme- 
diately, before they have had time to procreate incestuous 
issue ; for, in Leviticus xviii, it is said of those, who con- 
tract these two identical marriages, that “they shall be 
cut off from among their people.” 

I will only add that Mohammed, as we have seen 
on a former page, as well as Heathen Rome, had too 
much principle, or too much decency, to confine their 
laws of incest to cases of consanguinity. 

V. Where the Law of incest forbids marriage with 
the wife of an individual, it really forbids it with his 
widow. 

There are four female connections expressly men- 
tioned in the law, as the wives of given individuals: a 
father’s wife, a son’s wife, a brother's wife, and an 
uncle's wife. It has been strenuously contended that, 
as the word wife is here used, and not widow, that wife 
and not widow is intended ; and of course that it was 
lawful to marry either of these connections, when they 
became widows. - In support of this position: it. is said, 
that mere affinity is the sole ground of the several pro- 
hibitions, that the affinity ceases in each case with the 
life of the respective husband, and that the prohibition 
therefore ceases at his death. Thus, it is said that a 


76 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


step-mother ceases to be related to her step-son, as soon 
as her husband is dead; but why the propinquity then 
ceases, has not been explained. What, then, let me 
ask, originally constituted that propinquity ? Plainly 
the fact, that the father,—consensu atque concubitu, 
qui faciunt nuptias,—had consummated marriage 
with her. In the language of the law, she then became 
one flesh with him: or had his propinquity. As soon 
as this became a fact, the propinquity was complete. 
But when this once became a fact, it could never be 
otherwise than a fact; and of course the foundation of 
the propinquity, between the step-mother and the step- 
son, could never cease. Neither the father’s death, nor 
the subsequent marriage of the step mother, could affect 
it; because neither could affect the pre-existent faci of 
their marriage, which was the foundation on which it 
rested. My sister does not lose the propinquity which she 
has in common with me, either at my father’s death, or 
at her marriage ; because her propinquity is founded on 
a pre-existent fact, which can never cease to be a fact. 

The scriptural writers, in pointing out correlatives by 
affinity, in all cases use the word wife, and never the 
word widow, when they are actually speaking of a 
widow. Ruthiv.5. “ Buy it of Ruth, the wife of the 
dead.”—2 Sam. xii. 10. “'Thou hast taken the wife 
of Uriah.”— Mat. xxii. 25. “The first died, and left 
his wife.”—Acts v. 7. “ Ananias’ wife, not knowing 
that her husband was dead.”—Such was the common 
parlance of the Hebrews, the Greeks, and the Romans; 
and such is that of the French, the Germans, the Span- 
iards, and the Italians, as well as of the English. In 
their versions of the scriptures, they never introduce the 
word widow in such cases. Nay, those with whom | 
contend have confessed, in a manner not to be gains 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 77 


sayed, that this is the only fair construction of the law ; 
for, in stating the question now in debate, they always 
ask, “Is it lawful for a man to marry his brother’s wife,” 
and never his brother’s widow; —“Is it lawful for a 
woman to marry her sister’s husband,” and never, her 
sister’s widower. 

The language of Statutes is chosen with great exact- 
ness; yet no law of incest, probably, can be found in 
any statute-book, in which marriage is prohibited with 
a father’s widow, a brother’s widow, &c. But the 
language uniformly is “a father’s wife,” “a brother’s 
wife.” The other phraseology is rarely if ever used, 
except when logical precision is necessary. 

If the construction which I oppose be correct, the Law 
of incest, in prohibiting marriage with a father’s wife, a 
brother’s wife, an uncle’s wife, and a son’s wife, merely 
prohibited polygamy on the part of the women in ques- 
tion ; i. e. prohibited them from having the two hus- 
bands specified at the same time, and assigned the pro- 
pinquity of the two men, as the reason why it was un- 
lawful. I will barely. ask the reader, therefore, whether 
the prohibition—“ Thou. shalt not marry thy father’s 
wife”—means— Thou and thy father shali not be hus- 
bands of the same woman at once, because ye are near 
of kin 2--If it does; then two men, not near of kin, 
might be her husbands.at once. If it does not ; then the 
Law of incest forbids marriage with a wife, as a widow. 

It ought also to be observed, that this palpable. mis- 
take, if it ever existed except in the mind of a caviller, 
grew probably out of the manner, in which these various 
phrases are rendered in the English Version. The 
Hebrews usually express the given correlatives by 
phrases corresponding to father’s wife, son's wife, 
uncle's wife, and brother's wife ; and our translators 


78 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


have generally given a literal version of those phrases. 
Had they been uniformly rendered step-mother, daugh- 
ter-in-law, aunt-in-law, and sister-in-law, neither the 
mistake nor the cavil probably would have originated. 

I will barely add that Mohammed, in constructing 
his laws of marriage and incest, was not gross enough 
in his licentiousness to avow the principle, which I am 
now opposing ; and that the Greeks and Romans, and 
almost all other Heathen nations, not excepting even 
the Canaanites, had too much decency to adopt it. 

VI. The Law of incest was not made to preserve the 
Supremacy of husbands, and the Subordination of 
wives. . 

It is said that, by the laws of both God and nature, 
the husband is, and ought to be, the head of the family ; 
and a direct reference is made to Ephes. v. 23, “ For 
the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is 
the head of the church.”—T hat this is sound law, and 
sound orthodoxy, no man will deny. Indeed most 
women profess to admit it in the abstract ; and nothing 
in the concrete, no prescription derived from any pre- 
vailing practice, however ancient or however general, 
can be allowed to unsettle acknowledged principles. - 

It is contended that the Law of incest is made 
in exact conformity with this design; that it forbids 
those marriages, in which the husband is naturally 
the younger, and in grade of generation the inferior, 
party ; while it allows those, in which his age and 
standing are superior. Thus, it is said that marriage 
is forbidden with a mother, with an aunt, and with an 
uncle’s wife ; while marriage with a daughter, with a 
niece, with a nephew's wife, and with a wife’s niece is 
not forbidden. 

‘Those, who have advanced this argument, have ex- 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 79 


amined the Law of incest, just as far as suited their own 
purposes, and no further. It is true, that marriage is 
expressly prohibited between a son and a mother, a 
nephew and an aunt, and that it is not expressly pro- 
hibited between a father and a daughier,* an uncle 
and a niece. It is also true, that marriage is expressly 
prohibited with an wnecle’s wife ; while it is not ex- 
pressly prohibited with a nephew’s wife, or with a wife’s 
niece. But it is also true, that it is not expressly pro- 
hibited with a wife's aunt. Yet surely a man is as 
absolutely one generation younger than his wife's aunt, 


* It has indeed been supposed by some persons, that marriage be- 
tween a father and a daughler is expressly forbidden in Leviticus xviii. 
7. ‘*The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, 
shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother, thou shalt not uncover her 
nakedness.”—To this it is answered, 1. That the last clause, which is 
explanajory of the first, clearly confines the prohibition to incest with 
a mother, 2. That all the directions in the Law of incest are ad- 
dressed to men, and in no one instance to women; and of course that, 
if it had been the intention to give an express prohibition of marriage 
between father and daughter, in this verse, the direction would have 
been addressed to a father not to uncover the nakedness of his daughter, 
as it is, In a subsequent verse, to a brother not to uncover the naked- 
ness of his sister. The bare suggestion, that a daughter should pro- 
ceed to uncover the nakedness of her father, is unnatural and mon- 
strous, and no such prohibition could have been needed. 3. The scrip- 
tures no where, not even inthe case of the daughters of Lot, speak of 
a woman as uncovering the nakedness of a man. 4. To uncover the 
nakedness of a man, when the act is not his own, denotes uniformly to 
uncover the nakedness of his wife. See particularly Lev. xviii. 8, 14, 16, 
and Ley. xx. 11, 20, and 21. 5. In the Law itself, we are taught ex- 
plicitly, in two passages, what the phrase, the nakedness of thy father, 
actually denotes: Lev. xx. 11. ‘The man that lieth with his father’s 
wife, hath uncovered his father’s nakedness.”—Lev. xviii. 8. “ The 
nakedness of thy father’s wife, shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s 
nakedness.”——These reasons have convinced me that Lev. xviii. 7, is 
addresssd only to a son, forbidding him to marry his mother; and that 
the connective §, rendered or, ought to be rendered here, as in many 
other cases, by namely, that is, or to wit. 


80 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


as he is than his wnede’s wife. Here, then, in the very 
class of relations, on which the objector had his eye in 
forming his theory,—collaterals of the second degree by 
affinity,—we find a case, which completely oversets that 
theory. ' 
Again. Marriage is expressly forbidden with a grand- 
daughter, but it is not expressly forbidden with a grand- 
mother.* A grand-mother is two generations older 
than her grand-son ; so that the danger of subverting 
the marital prerogative would have been extreme. Butin 
the case of a grand-father and grand-daughter, where 
the chance of maintaining that prerogative would have 
been the highest possible, if superiority of age could 
have maintained it, there is an express prohibition. 
Again. Marriage is expressly prohibited with a wife’s 
daughter, with a son’s wife, and with a wife’s grand- 
daughter ; in each of which the husband would have 
the advantage, by one or two generations of priority ; 
and yet it is not expressly prohibited with a grandfa- 
ther’s wife ; in which he would be placed under a double 
disadvantage. It is not true, therefore, that it was the 
grand design of the Law of incest to prohibit those mar- 
riages only, which, through the inferiority of hisage and 
standing, would jeopard the husband’s right, to be the 
head of the family. Husbands, Tadmit, have been toiling, 
for many a weary century, to carry this point without suc- 
cess. But it will not do, to subvert the Law of incest, in 
order to prevent conjugal usurpation, and the consequent 
subversion of family order. In this, as in all practical 
cases, the Scriptures point out the path of duty so clearly, 
that she who runs may read:—“ Wives submit yourselves 


* Let it not be said that such a prohibition was unnecessary, be- 
cause no grand-son would be in danger of marrying his grand-mother ; for 
marriage is expressly prohibited with a wife’s grand-mother., 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 81 


unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord:”—“ As the 
church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be untotheir 
own husbands, in every thing.”—How this duty could be 
expressed more broadly or clearly in English, in Greek, 
or even in Hebrew, is to me inconceivable. If then 
wives will not obey these most reasonable, and salutary, 
and explicit injunctions ;— why then—alas !—there is no 
help for it !— Certain we are, the remedy, which it is sup- 
posed the Law of incest was intended to apply to this evil, 
was worse than none ; for, if we were to look for the class 
of husbands, who, as a class, are not only wholly denied 
their prerogative, but are kept by their wives under the 
most absolute and childlike subjection, we should find it 
to be the class of old husbands, whohave married young 
wives. 

VII. A Wife is not more nearly related to her husband 
and his relations, than a Husband is to his wife and her 
relations. 

The reader may not unnaturally smile, at this formal 
and grave assertion of what he may regard as a palpable 
truism. And when I first heard the proposition, that 
a wife is more nearly related to her husband and his 
relations, than a husband is to his wife and her rela- 
tions, it seemed to me about as rational as to say, that 
London is nearer to Paris, than Paris to London. Yet 
this proposition has found many advocates both among the 
clergy and the laity, and has been soberly advanced, not 
only to regulate the decisions of our Ecclesiastical Courts, 
but to guide our Legislatures in the enactment of laws.* 

This proposition is, | believe, purely of American origin, 
and was first promulgated about thirty years since, by 
the Rev. Mr. of Its promulgation was a 


* This position was taken and maintained by the Presiding officer of 
the Senate in the case mentioned in the advertisement, 


Pg 


82 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


work of both “ necessity and mercy ;” as its Author was 
then about to marry his wife’s sister--a step, at that 
time, not in all respects clerical ;—and it became neces- 
sary, in his view, to issue a pamphlet defending the step,—— 
if not in order to allay personal uneasiness, yet—in order 
to quiet parochial agitation, and prevent ecclesiastical 
censure. 

The ground actually taken by the Rev. Author, is this: 
—-'That a husband is no/ at al/ related to his wife, or to 
her former relations ; because by the marriage the wife 
is completely “ absorbed” in the husband. In this lan- 
guage, he does not mean simply to say, that the ame and 
the estate of the wife are absorbed in those of the hus- 
band: this we all admit ; but he says that the wife her- 
self is absorbed in him: That is, by the marriage, a 

Wife becomes the flesh of her husband's flesh, as truly 
as Hve was Adam’s flesh before her personal existence ; 
but a Husband never doesandnever can become ¢he flesk 
of his wifes flesh. In other words, both husband and 
wife are, to-all intents and purposes, ‘he husband’s flesh, 
or have the husbana’s consanguinity ; but are neither of 
them in any sense the wife’s flesh, or have the wife's 
consanguinity : she losing by the marriage all propin- 
quity to her former relations. 

* The curious reader-will be willing to know, whence 
the Rey. Author derived this singular notion. He him- 
self informs us that it was from the Institution and Law 
of Marriage. In the Law of marriage it is said, “ And 
they twain shall be one flesh.” This “ one flesh” he in- 
sists, means the husband’s flesh.—Why ?-—Because 
Adam, when Eve was presented to him, said, “ This is 
now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh,” Gen. ii. 
23. ‘The next verse, “For this cause shall a man leave 
his father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 83 


they shall be one flesh,” according to the Rev. Author, is a 
continuation of this speech of Adam ; and he insists 
that this very speech of Adam is expressly assigned as 
the reason, why husband and wife become one flesh. 
Our Saviour thought differently: he tells us that the 
24th verse was noi a continuation of the speech of Adam, 
but a declaration of God himself. He also tells us that 
the therefore, or for this cause, in this passage, refers— 
not to the preceding speech of Adam; but—to the fact 
that God made Man male and female. His language 
is: “ Have ye not read that he, which made them at 
the beginning, made them male and female, and said, 
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, 
and cleave unto his wife, and they twain shall be one 
flesh ?” - Adam’s remark, that Eve is “bone of his bone 
and flesh of his flesh,” does not therefore contain the 
reason, why a man and his wife are one flesh ; nor 
even furnish the evidence of the fact, unless they are 
one flesh independently of the remark ; and of course 
does not prove that ¢hat one flesh, which they now are, 
is the husband’s flesh. 'The Rey. Author also adduces 
Adam’s remark, “'This is now bone of my _ bone, 
and flesh of my flesh,” as conclusive evidence, that 
Adam did not consider Eve as flesh of his flesh, until 
their marriage. Who, that remembers that Eve was 
formed of a rib taken out of Adam’s body, and that 
Adam himself assigns this single fact as the reason, why 
she was “bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh,” but 
must admire this attempt at argument ? 

The Rey. Author endeavours to establish his general 
proposition by asserting, that the Scriptures never speak of 
a wife and her children as nigh of kin to her former 
kindred, but only to her Ausband’s kindred. We will 
examine this assertion. Gen. xxix. 10, 12, 14, “ And it 


ae 
$4. _\PHE LAW OF INCEST. 


came to pass when Jacob saw Rachel, the daughter of 
Laban, his mother’s brother, &c.---“ And Jacob told 
Rachel that he was her father’s brother, (FI&, kins- 
man,) and that he was Rebekah’s son. And Laban 
said unto him, ‘Surely thou art my bone, and my flesh. ” 
We here perceive that Rebekah was not so totally “ ab- 
sorbed” in her husband Isaac, as to prevent Laban from 
continuing to be her brother ; and that her flesh was not so 
much become flesh ofher husbana’s flesh, as to prevent 
her son Jacob from continuing to be the kinsman of 
Laban, and the same bone and flesh with him. In 
Leviticus xvili. 13, it is said, “'Thou shalt not uncover 
the nakedness of thy mother’s sisier, for she is thy 
mother’s near kinswoman ;” and in Lev. xx. 19, “'Thou 
shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister ; 
for he uncovereth his near kin.” Plainly in the first of 
these two passages, (both of them contained in the Law 
of incest,) a married woman, and in the last, her-son, are 
declared to-be near of kin to her former relations--- 
Judges ix. 1, 2, “ And Abimelech went unto his mother’s 
brethren, and communed with them and with all the 
family of the house of his mother’s father, saying,--- 
Remember also that I am your bone and your flesh. 
And his mother’s brethren spake of him, He is our 
brother.” Wad the Rev. Author observed these and 
many similar passages, he must with Christian frank- 
ness have acknowledged that a married woman does not, 
by her marriage, lose any part of her propinquity to her 
own kindred, and that her children are just as near.to 
them, as to her husband’s kindred. 

But he adds—When a man died, and left his estate 
incumbered, his own relations were to redeem it, and 
not those of his wife. This was true; and simply be- 
cause by the laws of Israel his own relations and not 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 85 


those of his wife, had a right to his estate by descent. 

The Rev. Author also insists that the Husband is said, 
in the Scriptures, to betroth, espouse, take, receive, and 
marry the wife; while the Wife is said to be betrothed, 
espoused, taken, and received by, and married, and 
given in marriage, to, the husband. Hence he con- 
cludes, that the wife is “absorbed,” or becomes “her 
husband’s flesh.” With regard to the words marry, and 
married to, this is not correct— The wife of the dead 
shall not marry without.” “ But if widows cannot con- 
tain, let them marry.” “If a virgin marry, she hath 
not sinned.” “The younger widows will marry.” 
“He that 7s married, careth how he may please his 
wife.” With regard to the word fo take, it is also un- 
true. Ezek. xvi. 32, “ Butasa wife, that ta/eth strang- 
ers intead of her husband.” 

As to the other words, it is true; and it only proves the 
well-known fact, that the man was acéive and the 
woman passive, in effectuating the marriage. In our 
own language, we say, for the same reason, that the 
gentleman courts, addresses, and makes proposals to, 
the lady, and that the lady is courted and addressed by, 
and receives proposals from, the gentleman; yet who 
ever imagined from this fact, that a lady, on the eve of 
marriage, was about to undergo an absorption ? 

The same conclusion is drawn by the Rev. Author 
from the account of the Mystical Union between Christ 
and his Church, in Eph. v. 23, 31; and from the paral- 
lel, there drawn between that Union and the Marriage 
Union. To this it is sufficient to reply that, in the pas- 
sage referred to, Paul is endeavouring to explain the 
intimacy and tenderness of the “ Mystical Union,” by 
comparing it to the Marriage Union ; but that he sheds 

8 


86 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


no new light on the latter: leaving it just where he 
found it. 

Great stress is laid, by the Rev. Author, on Deut. xxv. 
5, 6, already cited; which is a partial and conditional 
repeal or suspension of the Section in Lev. xviii. 16, 
forbidding marriage with a brother's wife. Where a 
man lived in his brother’s family, and his brother died 
without issue, he is authorized, by the repealing Section 
to marry the widow, in order to raise up a name to his 
brother in Israel. The first-born of this second mar- 
riage took the name of the deceased brother, and was 
heir to his estate. The argument is this :—If the pro- 
hibition of marriage with a brother's wife involved a 
prohibition of marriage with a wife’s sister ; then the 
permission of the former marriage involved the permis- 
sion of the latter; and of course marriage with a wife’s 
sister was lawful. 

The object of the partial repeal, in Deut. xxv. is ex- 
pressly stated to be,----to procure an heir to the brother 
deceased, and perpetuate his name. But, by the laws 
of Israel, a deceased wife could not have an heir ; for 
the real estate of the family belonged to her surviving 
husband. Her name also was sunk in that of her hus- 
band, at the time of the marriage. Of course her sister 
could not marry the husband, to raise up an /eir to her 
deceased sister, or to perpetuate her name ; for she had 
no name but that of her husband, and could have no 
heir—no person on whom the law would cast her 
estate---as she had no estate separate from her husband. 
This partial suspension of the prohibition to marry a 
brother’s wife, could not therefore, under any circum- 
stances, involve a suspension of the prohibition to marry 
a wife’s sister. Plainly, if the exception to a general 
law can be supposed in any case to extend farther than 


a 


THE LAW OF INCEST. _ 87 


the express language of the exception ; yet certainly 
it can never extend oe than the reason of the ex- 
ception extends. 

The Rev. Author supposes, thatthe Language of the 
Law of Incest completely establishes the point, for which 
he contends----particularly that in Levit. xviii. 6, “ None 
of you shall approach to any, that is near of kin to 
him.” ‘The Hebrew phrase, rendered near of kin, is 
wa ANU : literally, flesh of his flesh. He in- 
sists that this General Section is comprehensive, and 
includes all the Particular Prohibitions which follow. 
He also insists that the phrase, near of kin, denotes con- 
sanguinity, or nearness by blood, and that consan- 
guinity is the sole ground of incest. If this General 
Section does include all the Particular Prohibitions, 
(which we do not deny,) then the Particular Prohibitions 
certainly and necessarily explain and define the force and 
meaning of the General Section. The reader will 
therefore be surprised at the information, that consan- 
guinity is the sole ground of incest, when he remem- 
bers that of the marriages, expressly prohibited, eleven 
are with relations by affinity, and only six with relations 
by consanguinity. But, to allay this surprise, he ig 
immediately informed that consanguinity is the real 
cause of the prohibition in all those, which are common- 
ly regarded as cases of affinity. For example: the 
reason why you are forbidden to marry your brother’s 
wife is this----That your brother is flesh of your flesh ; 
and the flesh or consanguinity of his wife is by her 
marriage absorbed, so that she is now flesh of his flesh 
and of course has become your sister by consanguinity. 
The same may be said of a father’s wife, a son’s wife, 
an uncle’s wife, and of the wife of every other near rel- 
ative. She loses her former flesh or consanguinity 


88 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


in toto, and receives a new one identically the same with 
that of her husband. 

This is ingenious, and, did we not compare it with 
the Law of incest, might seem plausible. But in that 
Law, marriage is expressly prohibited with no less than 
siz of a wife’s former relations~-with her father’s 
mother, her mother’s mother, her mother, her daughier, 
her son’s daughter, and her daughters daughter. 
But if the wife’s former consanguinity were “ absorbed ” 
in her husband’s, neither she nor he would be at all 
related to her former relations ; and of course it could 
not be unlawful for him to marry them. The wife 
therefore is not absorbed in her husband; her consan- 
guinity to her former relations does not cease; and her 
husband, by marrying her, becomes as truly and as 
nearly related to them, as she becomes related to his 
relations. The former flesh or propinquity of neither is 
lost or changed; but that of each is so transferred or 
communicated to the other, as to render the subsequent 
propinquity of each, like that of their children, two-fold : 
yet not so far, as to give either any propinquity to the 
relations of the other by affinity. Accordingly, while 
the husband is expressly forbidden to marry six of his 
wife’s relations by consanguinity, he is expressly for- 
bidden to marry only five of his own relations by 
affinity ; and yet he is forbidden to marry none of her 
relations by affinity. And as the same is true, mutatis 
mutandis, of the wife ,;* it follows that husband and 
wife are equally near to each other, and to each other’s 
kindred. Consanguinity, therefore, even in this ex- 


* This is literally true, with this slight exception: that the wife is 
expressly forbidden to marry only five of her husband’s relations by 
consanguinity, and siz of her own by affinity. 


THE LAW OF INCEST: 89 


tended sense of the word, is not the sole ground of In- 
cest ; but Affinity also: or to use a more general term, 
Propinquity. 

It ought to be added, that if the wife’s former consan- 
guinity ceased upon her marriage, and became her hus- 
band’s consanguinity, then, upon the death of her hus- 
band, she would have as perfect a right to marry him, 
who was previously her wncle, her nephew, her brother, 
or her father, or even her son by a previous marriage, 
as her husband had to marry “er, or as his sister has to 
marry either of them. It ought also to be added, that 
as a brother’s wife, on this scheme, is the own sister of 
his brothers, the Section, directing the surviving brother 
to marry the widow of his deceased brother, was a di- 
rection to marry his own sister. It ought to be added, 
likewise, that, if the wife loses her former consanguinity, 
and takes that of her husband, the two families are no 
more connected by the intermarriage than they were 
before: one of them merely having lost, and the other 
gained, an own daughter ; that all relationship by 
affinity is a mistake and an impossibility ; and that the 
phrases father-in-law, son-in-law, brother-in-law, sis- 
ter-in-law, and others like them, though used in Codes 
of Laws by all nations, and even by God himself, have 
no meaning. It ought to be added, finally, that the 
children of a man, by two wives, are, on this plan, own 
brothers and sisters, or of the full blood; that those 
of a woman by two husbands, are not related at all ; 
and that relationship by the half blood is a nonentity : 
so that those heretofore called half-brothers and 
half-sisters, if born of the same mother, not being re- 
lated, may lawfully intermarry. 

VIII. With regard to tmplied prohibitions, we are 

8* 


90 THE LAW OF INCEST. " 


bound to give the Law of incest a wniform construc- 
tion. 

Certain marriages are prohibited 7m express terms ; 
and others are supposed to be prohibited by clear im- 
plication. 'This implication is thus supported: in the 
express cases, the reason directly assigned for the pro- 
hibition is the propinquity of the parties: but there 
are certain other cases, in which the propinquity of 
the parties is mathematically the same as in the ex- 
press cases ; and other cases still, in which it is greater. 
These, therefore. are supposed to be prohibited. 

Iam not here inquiring whether this reasoning is 
correct: I merely insist, that, whatever our Rule ts, it 
must be uniform, and applicable to every case. 
Either there are implied prohibitions, or there are not. 
If there are not ; then we must follow the strict letter 
of the law, and exclude from its operation every case 
not mentioned totidem verbis. If there are implied 
prohibitions; then we must include in them every case, 
in which the reason of the implication operates. Thus, 
we have no right, in order to obviate a difficulty, to in- 
clude various implied cases of consanguinity, and yet 
refuse to include any implied cases of affinity. Neither 
the law itself, nor the reason of the case gives any such 
rule of implication, but each leaves the two classes of 
cases in this respect exactly on a level. | 

I will illustrate this principle. The law expressly 
forbids marriage between a mother and her son, and 
between a brother’s wife and her husband’s brother ; 
but it does not expressly prohibit marriage between a 
father and his daughter, or between a sister's hus- 
band and his wife’s sister. It also expressly prohibits 
marriage between a grandfather and his grand- 
daughter, and between a nephew-in-law and his 


” THE LAW OF INCEST. 91 


aunt-in-law ; but it does not expressly prohibit it ‘be- 
tween a grandmother and her grandson, or between 
a niece-in-law and her wnele-in-law. Now if the ez- 
press prohibition of marriage between a mother and 
her son, and between a grandfather and his grand- 
daughter, proves that marriage is also prohibited be- 
tween a father and his daughter, and between a 
grandmother and her grandson, because the propin- 
quity in each set of cases is the same, and equals are 
equal; then does the express prohibition of marriage 
between a brother’s wife and her husband’s brother, 
and between a nephew-in-law and his aunt-in-law, 
prove that marriage is also prohibited between a 
sister's husband and his wife’s sister, and between a 
niece-in-law and her wncle-in-law, because the propin- 
quity in each set of cases is the same, and equals are 
equal.—So far as the rule of implication is concerned, 
therefore, either if was lawful for a man to marry 
his daughter and his grandmother, or it was not law- 
ful for him to marry his wife’s sister or his niece-in- 
law, i. e. his wife’s niece. 

IX. Various marriages, not expressly prohibited by 
the Law of incest, are really prohibited by that Law. 

The reason assigned for every prohibition is the pro- 
pinguity of the parties. 'The law declares that a mo- 
ther is so near to her son, that marriage between them 
is “an iniquity.” Buta father is just as near to his 
daughter, as a mother to her son. If then the propin- 
quity between a mother and her son is so great, as to 
render marriage between them an iniquity; the very 
same propinquity between a father and his daughter 
renders marriage between them an iniquity; because 
equals are equal. In the same manner, if the propin- - 
quity between a grandfather and his granddaughter, 


92 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


and that between an aunt and her nephew, is so great, 
as to render marriage between them unlawful; then is 
the very same propinquity between a grandmother 
and her grandson, and between an wnele and his 
niece, so great, as to render marriage between them un- 
lawful; because equals are equal. 

Various cases also are expressly prohibited, in which 
the propinquity is such less, than in various other 
cases not expressly prohibited in the Law. ‘Thus, 
marriage is expressly prohibited with a wife’s daughter 
and a wife's grandmother ; but it is not expressly 
prohibited with an own daughter, or an own grand- 
mother. If then the propinquity is great enough in the 
two former cases, to render marriage unlawful, @ for- 
tiorz it is great enough in the two latter cases: because 
it is greater in the two latter than in the two former, 
and the greater is greater than the less. 

If there are no zmplied prohibitions, the law involves 
a self-evident falsehood. It says that the less propin- 
quity between a man and his wife’s daughter, or his 
wifes grandmother, is great enough to render mar- 
riage with either, criminal; and that the greater pro- 
pinquity between a man and his own daughter, or his 
own grandmother, is not great enough to render mar- 
riage with either criminal:—in other words, that the 
less propinquity between a man and his wife’s daugh- 
ter, or his wife's grandmother, is greater than the 
greater propinquity between a man and his own 
daughter, or his own grandmother ; which is mathe- 
matically a falsehood, and is not, therefore, the lan- 
guage of the law. here are cases, then, really prohi- 
bited by the Law of incest which are not expressly 
mentioned in that Law. 

X. All marriages are really prohibited by the Law 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 93 


of incest, in which the propinquity is the same, as in 
those expressly prohibited. 

Were not the propinquity of the parties the rule for 
determining what cases are prohibited by implication, 
there could be no rule. But the Law itself obviously 
makes propinquity the rule and the only rule. It does 
this expressly by assigning propinquity as the only 
reason why the marriages specified are prohibited. 
When the Law says to an aunt and nephew, “You 
are too nearly related to marry”—because equals are 
equal, it says the same to an uncle and niece ; since 
the two last are just as nearly related as the two first, 
In other words, it makes propingutty the sole criterion, 
by which to determine, whether a given marriage not 
mentioned is prohibited or not. Of course if the Law, 
in any one case, declares a given degree of propinquity 
to be so great, as to render marriage unlawful, it virtually 
declares an equal or a greater degree of propinquity 
in any other case, to be so great as to render marriage 
unlawful: for the self-evident reasons, that equals are 
equal, and that the greater is greater than the less. 

Having thus recited the Sections of the Levitical Law 
of incest, and ascertained the Principles on which it is 
to be interpreted; we are led, in answering the ques- 
tion, What was that Law ? to consider, 

II. Tae Marriaces, wHIcH THE Law OF IN- 
CEST ACTUALLY PROHIBITED. 

In doing this we shall commence with Lineals, and 
close with Collaterals. 

1, Lineals of the first degree by consanguinity. 

Lev. xviii. 7. The nakedness of thy father or the na- 
kedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: She is 
thy mother: thou shalt not uncover her nakedness, 


94 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


Lev. xx. 11, And the man, that lieth with his father’s 
wife, hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of 
them shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be 
upon them. 

Deut. xxii. 30, A man shall not take his father’s wife, 
nor uncover his father’s skirt. 

Deut. xxvii. 20, Cursed be he, that lieth with his 
father’s wife; because he uncovereth his father’s skirt. 

In these passages marriage is expressly forbidden 
between a son anda mother. But the propinquity is 
the same between a father and a daughter. 'They 
therefore may not intermarry. Hence, 


A woman may not mary A man may not marry 
her his 
Son, Mother, 
Father. Daughter,* 


2. Lineals of the first degree by affinity. 

Ley. xvii. 8. The nakedness of thy father’s wife 
shalt thou not uncover : it is thy father’s nakedness.t 

Lev. xviii. 15, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness 
of thy daughter-in-law: she is thy son’s wife; thou 
shalt not uncover her nakedness. 

Lev. xviii. 17, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness 
of a woman and her daughter : it is wickedness. 

Ley. xx. 12, And if a man lie with his daughiter-in- 
law ; both of them shall surely be put to death. 

Ley. xx. 14, And if a man take a wife and her 
mother; they shall be burnt with fire. 

Deut. xxvii. 20, Cursed be he that lieth with his 
mother-in law. 

Marriage is here expressly forbidden with a step-moth- 


* The implied cases are italicised. 
} This passage certainly forbids marriage with a step-mother, because 
thepreceding verse forbids it with an own mother. Several of the pas- 
sagesrecited under the last head also forbid marriage with a step-mothers 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 95 


r, (Lev. xviii. 8,) with a step- daughter, (Lev. xviii. 17, 
nia xx. 14,) with a mother-in-law, (Lev. xviii. 17, and 
xx. 14, and Deut. xxvii. 20,) id with a dasie hte 


» 


in-law, (Lev. xviii. 15, and xx. 12.) Hence, F 
A woman may not marry A man may not marry 


her’ = : his 
Step-son, Step-mother, 
Step-father, Step-daughter, 
Father-in-law, Daughter-in-law, 
Son-in-law. Mother-in-law. 


3. Lineals of the second degree by consanguinity. 

Lev. xviii. 10, The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, 
or of thy daughter’s daughter, thou shalt not uncover : 
for theirs is thine own nakedness. 

Asa woman is just as near to her son’s son, and her 
daughters son, as aman to his son’s daughter and his 
daughters daughter ; the prohibition of the two latter 
implies that of the two former. Hence, 

A woman may not marry A man may not marry 


her his 

Father’s father, Son’s daughter, 

Mother’s father, Daughter’s daughter, 

Son’s son, Father’s mother, 

Daughter's son. Mother’s mother. 

Or more concisely, and in more customary language, 

Grand-father, Grand-daughter, 
Grand-son. Grand-mother. 


A. Lineals of the second degree by affinity. 

Lev. xvii. 17, “'Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness 
of a woman,—and her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s 
daughter: it is wickedness.” 'This passage pronounces 
the propinquity between a grand-mother and_ her 
grand-daughter, (whether her son’s daughter or her 
daughter's daughter) to be so great, that it is not law- 
ful for the man, who is the husband of either, to marry 
the other. 'This clause therefore, in express terms for- 


96 ~ PHE LAW OF INCEST. # 


bids marriage between a man and his wife’s grand- 
daughter, whether her son's daughter or her daugh- 
ter’s daughter, and between a man and his wife’s 
grand-mother, whether her father’s mother or her 
mother’s mother. But a woman has identically the 
same propinquity to her husband’s grand-son on the 
one hand, whether his son’s son, or his daughter’s 
son, and to her husband’s grand-father on the other, 
whether his father’s father or his mother’s father. 
Hence, 

A woman may notmarry Aman may not marry 


her his 
Father’s mother’s husband, Wife’s son’s daughter, 
Mother’s mother’s husband. Wife’s daughter’s daughter. 
Son’s daughter’s husband, Wife’s father’s mother, 
Daughter’s daughter’s husband. ( Wife’s mother’s mother. 
Husband’s son’s son, Father’s father’s wife, 
Husband’s daughter’s son. Mother's father’s wife. 
Husband’s father’s father, Son’s son’s wife, 
Husband’s mother’s father. Daughter's son’s wife. 
Or more concisely, and in more customary language 
? ’ 
Grand-mother’s husband, Wife’s grand-daughter, 
Grand-daughter’s husband. Wife’s grand-mother. 
Husband’s grand-son, Grand-father’s wife. 
Husband's grand-father. Grand-son’s wife. 


5. Collaterals of the first degree by consanguinity. 

Ley. xviii. 9, The nakedness of thy sister, the daugh- 
ter of thy father or the daughter of thy mother, whether 
she be born at home, or abroad, even their nakedness 
thou shalt not uncover. 

Ley. xviii. 11, The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s 
daughter, begotten of thy father, (she is thy sister,) thou 
shalt not uncover her nakedness. 

Lev. xx. 17, And if a man shall take his sister, his 
father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, and see 
her nakedness, and she see his nakedness: it is a wick- 
edness ; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 97 
a» 
people: he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness, he shall 
bear his iniquity. 

Deut. xxvii. 22, Cursed be he that lieth with his sis- 
ter, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his 
mother. : 

Kach of these passages forbids marriage in express 
terms, between a brother and a sister, both of the whole 
and of the half blood. Hence, 

A woman may not marry A man may not marry 
her his 
Brother. ; Sister. 

6. Collaterals of the first degree by affinity. 

Lev. xviii. 6, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness 
of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness. 

Lev. xx. 21, And if a man shall take his brother’s 
wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his 
brother’s nakedness: they shall be childless. 

These passages, in express ierms, forbid marriage 
between a husband’s brother and a brother's wife. 
But the propinquity between a wife's sisier and a sis- 
ters husband, is identically the same. Hence, 


A woman may not marry A man may not marry 


her his 
Husband’s brother. Brother’s wife. 
Sister’s husband. Wife's sister. 


7. Collaterals of the second degree by consanguin- 
aty. 

Lev. xxviii. 12, 13, Thou shalt not uncover the na- 
kednees of thy father’s sister: thou shalt not uncover 
the nakedness of thy mother’s sister. 

Lev. xx. 19, And thou shalt not uncover the naked- 
ness of thy mother’s sister, nor of thy father’s sister: for 
he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their 
iniquity. 

qurcy: 9 


, 3° ) ~it 
98 . THE LAW OF INCEST. 


Te passages expressly forbid marriage between 
a man and his father’s sister or his mother’s sister 
—that is, between a nephew and his aunt ; but their 
propinquity is identically the same as that between 
a woman and her father’s brother or her mother’s . 
brother---that is between a niece and her uncle. Hence, 


y 
A woman may not marry A man may not marry 


her — his 
Brother’s son. Father’s sister. 
Sister’s son. Mother’s sister. 
Father’s brother. Brother’s daughter. 
Mother’s brother. Sisters’s daughter. & 
Or more concisely, and in more customary language. 
Nephew. Aunt. 
Unele. Niece. 


8. Collaterals of the second degree by affinity. 

Lev. xviii. 14, Thou shalt not uncover the naked- 
ness of thy father’s brother : thou shalt not approach to 
his wife: she is thine aunt. 

Lev. xx. 20, And if a man shall lie with his uncle’s 
wife, he hath uncovered his uncle’s nakedness: they 
shall bear their sin: they shall die childless. 

The phrase “an uncle’s wife” includes both a fath- 
er’s brother's wife, and a mother’s brother's wife. 
This passage therefore expressly forbids marriage be- 
tween a husband’s nephew and an uncle’s wife. But 
a wife’s niece is just as near to an aunt’s husband—i. e. 
to a father’s sister’s husband or a mother’s sister's 
husband. In the same manner a husband’s uncle is 
just as near to a nephew’s wife—that is toa brother’s 
son’s wife or a sister's sows wife. In the same man- 
ner a wife’s aunt is just as near to her niece’s husband 
--that is, to her brother’s daughter’s husband and her 


THE LAW OF INCEST. — “5 " 


sister's daughter's husband. 'These therefore are for- 
bidden to intermarry. Hence, 


99 


* 
A woman may not marry A man may not marry 
her his 


Husband’s brother’s son. idonn brother’s wife. 
Husband’s sister’s son. Mother’s brother’s wife. 
Father’s sister’s husband. Wife's brother's daughter. 
Mother's sister’s husband. Wife's sister’s daughter. 
§ Husband’s father’s brother. § Brother's son’s wife. i 
Husband’s mother’s brother. Sister’s sons’ wife. ¥ 


Brother’s daughter's husband. § Wife's father’s sister. 


Sister’s daughter’s husband. Wife’s mother’s sister. 


Or more concisely, and in more customary language, 


Husband's nephew. Uncle’s wife. 
Aunt’s husband, Wife's niece. 
Husband’s uncle. Nephew’s wife. 
Niece’s husband. Wife's aunt. 


The above are all the marriages prohibited by the 
Levitical Law of Incest. The following tables exhibit 
them at one view: those expressly forbidden in Roman 
letters, and those by implication in Italics, 


100 


THE LAW OF INCEST- 


TABLE I. 
A woman may not marry A man may not marry 
her -- his 
1. Son. 1. Mother. 
. Father. 2. Daughter. 
. Mother’s husband. 3. Wife’s daughter. 
Husband’s son. 4. Father’s wife. 
. Husband’s father. 5. Son’s wife. 
. Daughter’s husband. 6. Wife’s mother. 


~ 
. 


. Father’s father. 

. Mother’s father. 

. Son’s son. 

. Daughter's son. 

. Father’s mother’s husband. 
. Mother’s mother’s husb’d. 
. Son’s daughter’s husband. 
. Daughter’s daughter’s husb. 
. Husband's father’s father. 

. Husband's mother’s father. 
. Husband's son’s son. 

. Husband's daughter's son. 

. Brother.* 

. Husband’s brother. 

. Sister’s husband. 

- Brother’s son. 

.. Sister’s son. 

. Father's brother. 

. Mother’s brother. 

- Husband’s brother’s son. 

. Husband’s sister’s son. 

. Father's sister’s husband. 

. Mother's sister’s husband. 

- Husband’s father’s brother. 

. Husband’s mother’s brother. 
. Brother’s daughter's husb’d. 
. Sister’s daughters husband. 


Son’s daughter. 
Daughter’s daughter. 
Father’s mother. 
Mother’s mother. 

W ife’s son’s daughter. 
Wife’s daughter’s daughter. 
W ife’s father’s mother. 
Wife’s mother’s mother. 
. Son’s son’s wife. 

. Daughter’s son’s wife. 

. Father’s father’s wife. 

. Mothers father’s wife. 

. Sister.* 

. Brother’s wife. 

. Wife's sister. 

. Father’s sister. 

- Mother’s sister. 

. Brother's daughter. 

. Sister's daughter. 

. Father’s brother’s wife. 
. Mother’s brother’s wife. 
. Wife's brother’s daughter. 
. Wife's sister’s daughter. 
. Brother’s son’s wife. 

. Sister’s son’s wife. 

. Wife's father’s sister. 

. Wifes mother’s sister. 


WON NW NW NNWNNN NV SEH ee ee eee 


> £ PO en ll ell oll oll ee Pa 

O28 09 02 98 89 19 0 Oe OD DT OT OR 00 SOM SE Sh 90 
ww 

SSA SSHIAAGT EHV HK SOCBAAUHE WN HOOP 


In this table, the correlatives, who may not intermarry, 
are placed opposite each other, and numbered alike. In 
the table which follows, the correlatives are arranged as 
in our common bibles. 


* Brother and sister, both of the whole and of the half blood are ex- 
pressly forbidden to marry. A conscientious man will of course con- 
sider the same rule as extending to all other collateral relatives by con- 


sanguinity and affinity ; on the ground, that he cannot consent to incur 
half of the guilt of Incest. 


=e 
a teh 


11. 
f 12. 


Be RE KH 
ow 


woe 


ft 21. 


Ok 
* 10. 


t 13. 


t 14. Daughter’s daughter’s husb. 


t 17. 
$18. 


* 22. 
* 23, 
+ 32. Brother’s daughter’s husband. 


Toa 


{ 26. 


THE. LAW OF INCEST. 


101 


| TABLE II. 
A woman may not marry A man may not marry 


her 


Father’s father. 
Mother’s father. 
Father’s mother’s husband. 
Mother’s mother’s husband. 


. Husband’s father’s father. 

. Husband's mother’s father. 
. Father's brother. 

. Mother’s brother. 

. Father’s sister's husband. 

. Mother’s sister’s husband. 

. Husband’s father’s brother. 
. Husband’s mother’s brother. 


Father. 


. Step-father. 
. Husband’s father. 


Son. 
Husband’s son. 
Daughter’s husband. 


. Brother. 
. Husband’s brother. 


Sister’s husband. 

Son’s son. 

Daughter’s son. 

Son’s daughter’s husband. 


Husband’s son’s son. 
Husband’s daughter’s son. 
Brother’s son. 

Sister’s son. 


Sister’s daughter’s husband. 
Husband’s brother’s son. 


a ee ee a ee 


DwWwWwWd WR eee 


SHR SARO HARM 


his 


. Father's mother. 

. Mother’s mother. 

. Father’s father’s wife. 

. Mother's father’s wife. 

. Wife’s father’s mother. 
. Wife’s mother’s mother. 
. Father’s sister. 

. Mother’s sister. 

. Father’s brother’s wife. 
. Mother’s brother’s wife. 
. Wife's father’s sister. 

. Wife’s mother’s sister. 


Mother. 
Step-mother. 
Wife’s mother. 
Daughter. 

W ife’s daughter. 
Son’s wife. 
Sister. 


. Wife's sister, 


Brother’s wife. 

Son’s daughter. 

Daughter’s daughter. 

Son’s son’s wife. 

Daughter's son’s wife. 

W ife’s son’s daughter. 
Wife’s daughter’s daughter. 


. Brother's daughter. 
. Sister’s daughter. 
. Brother’s son’s wife. 


Sister's son’s wife. 
Wife's brother’s daughter. 
Wife's sister’s daughter. 


{ 27. Husband’s sister’s son. 


* Her own relations by consan- * His own relations by consan- 


guinity. guinity. 

} Her own connections by aflin- { His own connections by affin- 
ity. ity. 

{ Her husband’s relations by . {His wife’s relations by con- 
consanguinity. sanguinity. 


102 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


TABLE III. 


A woman may not marry. A man may not marry 


her his 
Grand-father. Grand-mother. 
Grand-mother’s husband, Grand-father’s wife. 
Husband’s grand-father. Wife’s grand-mother. 
Father. Mother. 
Step-father. Step-mother. 
Husband’s father. ; Wife’s mother. 
Son. * Daughter. 
Daughter’s husband. Son’s wife. 
Step-son. Step-daughter. 
Grand-son. Grand-daughter. 
Grand-daughter’s husband. = Grand-son’s wife. 
Husband's grand-son. W ife’s grand-daughter. 
Brother. Sister. 
Sister’s husband. Brother’s wife. 
Husband’s brother. Wife's sister. 
Uncle. Aunt. 
Aunt’s husband. Uncle’s wife. 
Husband’s uncle. Wife's aunt. 
Nephew. Niece. 
Niece’s husband. Nephew’s wife. 
Husband’s nephew. Wife's niece. ° 


This table embraces the same relatives as the two 
preceeding, but expressed more concisely: Lineals first, 
and Collaterals afterwards. In each triad of relatives, 
the first is a relative by the individual’s own consan- 
guinity: the second, by the individuals own affinity: 
the third by the consanguinity of the married partner. 
The law has thus a beautiful and truly mathematical 
simplicity. 

By attentively examining the preceding tables, we 
shall discover the following results : 

1. Marriage is prohibited between all Lineals, and 
all Collaterals, of the first and second degrees, both by 
consanguinity and affinity. The Lineals include all, 
both in the ascending and descending series, with whom 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 103 


marriage, according to the present length of human life, 
is physically possible. The Collaterals include all 
with whom one associates on the footing of brothers or 
sisters, of children of brothers or sisters, and of bro- 
thers or sisters of parerts. Between an individual and 
these relatives there is and ought to be all the intimacy 
of the most pure and confidential love ; and the mind in 
which it dwells, ought to prove to it -a sanctuary so 
secure, so holy, that no sensual desire should ever in- 
trude to soil its purity or jeopard its repose. In the 
sanctions of the Law of incest, this very safeguard is 
furnished to it, by God. * 

2. The Second Table is the same with that in our 
common Bibles ; comprising identically the same rela- 
tions, and in the same arrangement, in each column. 
In the Table in the Bible, the six first relations, how- 
ever, are expressed more concisely and comprehensively : 
in the first column, by the words Grandfather, Grand- 
mother’s husband, and Husband's grandfather ; and, 
in the second, by Grandmother, Grandfather’s wife, 
and Wife's grandmother : each of these including two 
of the relatives in the Second Table. 

3. The number of cases, ezpressly prohibited, is 
seventeen ; and that of those prohibited by tmplication, 
sixteen. 

4. Of the E'vpress cases, six are by consanguinity, 
and e’even by affinity: and of the Implied cases five 
are by consanguinity, and eleven by affinity. 

5. The first column exhibits ¢hirty-three relations, 
which a Woman may not marry: of which eleven are 
her own relations by blood, eleven her own relations 
by marriage, and eleven her husband’s relations by 
blood. 'The second column exhibits the same ‘Tesults, 


Beene 


ft 03 


{- 


104 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


mutatis mutandis, as to the relatives which a Man 
may not marry. 

6. Of the twenty-two relations by affinity, which a 
Man may not marry, siz of his wife’s, and five of his 
own, are eapressly prohibited ; and five of his wife’s, 
and six of his own, by implication: whereas of the 
twenty-two relations by affinity, which a Woman may 
not marry, five of her husband’s, and siz of her own 
are express cases, and six of her husband’s, and five of 
her own are implied cases. 

7. Wherever a Man is forbidden to marry a given 
relation of his own by consanguinity, he is also for- 
bidden to marry the same relation of his own by 
affinity, andthe same relation of his wife by con- 
sanguinity. But he is forbidden to marry no relation 
of his wife by affinity. In other words double affinity 
is not regarded by the Law, as in any case amounting to 
adebarring propinquity. Of course a man has a right 
to marry the widow of his wife’s father, son, brother, 
uncle, or nephew. The same is true, mutatis mu- 
tandis, of a Woman. 

8. The Lineals prohibited are eighteen in number, 
six by consanguinity, three express, and three implied ; 
and twelve by affinity, eight express, and four implied : 
the Collaterals are fifteen in number, five by consan- 
guinity, ¢hree express, and two implied; and ten by 
affinity, three express, and seven implied. 

9. The law does not prohibit the intermarriage of 
Collaterals of the third degree by consanguinity : 
—that is of first cowsins : nor of course those more re- 
mote. Many suppose the intermarriage of first cousins 
to be physically inexpedient. Where this impression 
is strong enough to counteract any propensity, that may 
exist in favour of such a marriage, it will of course pre- 


Bf 


‘ THE LAW OF INCEST. 105 


vail. But God has not forbidden it. There must be 
obviously a partition wall, somewhere between the inner 
and the outer courts of this temple, which no unhallowed 
foot may pass; and that, which is actually erected, ap- 
pears to us to be erected on the very line of demarca- 
tion, which Infinite wisdom and purity must have drawn. 
At all events, when we find that God has erected it 
where it is, we are satisfied that it is right. 

We have thus far examined the Law of incest, with- 
out reference to the much-debated Section, Leviticus 
xvii. 18. It is insisted, however, that that Section con- 
tains an Express L'xception to the Law, and authorizes 
marriage with the Sister of a deceased wife. Its true 
import, therefore, we will now attempt to ascertain. 

The language of Leviticus xviii. 18, rendered by 
our translators, in the fex/, “ Neither shalt thou take 
a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her naked- 
ness beside the other in her life-time”—but rendered 
by our translators tm the margin, “ Neither shalt thou 
take one wife to another”—has received, as we have 
already seen, the two following widely different and very 
Opposite constructions :— 

1. Neither shalt thou take one wife to another to vex 
her, to uncover her nakedness beside the other, in her 
life-time. 

2. Neither shalt thou take another wife, who is the 
sister of thy first wife, to vex /er,to uncover her naked- 
ness beside the other, in her life-time ; although thou 
mayest take one who is not her sister, because that will 
not vex her; and her sister also, after her death. 

This second interpretation, if it can be established, is 
a full permission of polygamy, and of marriage with 
the sister of a deceased wife. As to the lawfulness of 
polygamy, we have already seen, that it was directly 


106 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


prohibited by the Original Law of marriage, and that 
no evidence of its lawfulness under the Levitical Code 
exists, unless it is found in this passage. We-will en- 
deavour, then, to examine the passage, on its own 
merits, by the ordinary rules of criticism. 

_ The whole difficulty respecting this passage has arisen 
from the phrase TOMS Sy TON, (ishah el acothah,) 
translated, a woman to her sister’: not, however, from 
any dispute with regard to the meaning of the separate 
words in this phrase ;—for it is admitted, on both sides, 
that TON, (ishah,) means a woman, or a wife,* that 
BI (el,) means fo, and Fit Tats, (acothah,) her sister. 
The only question is, Whether this phrase is to be in- 
interpreted according to the meaning of its separate 
words, or whether it has here, and every where else, an . 

idiomatic meaning—the meaning of one woman to 
another, or one wife to another. = 

That words, in all languages, are sometimes used 
idiomatically ; that occasionally they have a different 
meaning, when connected, from what they have when 
apart ; and that the true meaning of a phrase is not 
always given by rendering it word for word into an- 
other language, is perfectly known to every one. Every 
language has its own peculiar idioms, which cannot be 
rendered verbatim into any other ; and, of all languages 
probably, none is more frequently idiomatic than the He- 
brew. When such idioms occur, the only way to render 
them accurately, is either by a corresponding idiom, 
or by a circumlocution. Thus the phrase 7} 3, 


* The original and customary meaning of TON is a@ woman: its 
secondary and less common meaning is a wife. "The same is true of 
yon in Greek, of femme in French, and of the corresponding word in 


various other oohoaces What the true meaning is, in each case, is 
of course determined by the sense. 


e 


THE LAW OF INCEST’. 107 


literally the son of my threshing-floor, denotes my 
threshed grain :-—®BS Vw, literally a tongue of fire, 
really a flame tf 2, Ve, literally the tooth of a rock, 


really a crag :-—D.M nSw, literally the lip of the sea, 


really the sea-shore.—The English language is full of 
such idioms. If any one will attempt to render the 
phrase, “ The horses are together by the ears,” liter- 
ally into any other language,—into the Latin for ex- 
ample, Equi sunt und per aures—he will see that ‘it 
will make absolute nonsense. The English phrase, J 
gave him tit for tat, or the similar one, J gave him a 
Rowland for his Oliver, obviously cannot be literally 
translated into any language ; yet it is perfectly intel- 
ligible to say in French, Je lui donnois son paquet ; 
and in Latin, Par pari retuli ; and in Greek, “Ove xced 
times, Totoy xceb Emnnouras ; and in Hebrew, Se Ann py, 
12 nA 1v- Hach of these five phrases has the 
same idiomatic or general meaning ; yet the words in 
neither, taken singly, have the same literal meaning 
with the words in either of the other four. It is then 
certain, that, when phrases are idiomatic, their mean- 
ing is entirely different from the simple meaning of the 
words, of which they are composed ; and that an idiom 
of one language, if rendered word for werd into another, 
is falsely rendered, unless the other language has an 
idiom identically similar. ‘ 

How then do we decide, whether a given phrase is 
idiomatic or not ?—By the best and simplest of all rules 
—by the customary use of it among those who write 
and speak the language.— Usus est jus et norma lo- 
quendi.—lf those, who best understand the language, 
give the phrase a meaning totally different from the 
simple meaning of the words ; we bow of course to 


108 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


their authority, and admit it to be an idiom of the 
language. Thus, when a F'renchman hears the phrase, 
“I have other fish to fry,” stead of attempting in vain 
to render it literally into J’ai d’autres poissons a 
Srive, he readily admits the explanation, J’ ai d'autres 
affaires ; and when an Englishman meets with the 
phrase “ I] mettoit du foin dans ses bottes,” instead of 
insisting that it shall be rendered, He put hay in his 
boots, he is happy in hearing it explained by another 
idiom, He laid up something against a rainy day. 
An apology is due to the reader, for attempting to sup- 
port principles so obvious, and so generally admitted : 
and it is found in the fact, that these very obvious prin- 
ciples have been strenuously denied, or disregarded, in 
their application to the case in hand. 

The question then meets us, Do the Hebrew writers 
give to the phrase in question, ADAMS a8 TWN, @ wo- 
man to her sister, the simple meaning of the words ; 
or do they use it as an idiom? This we can aeriinie! 
by referring to the passages in which it actually occurs.* 

This phrase ts found in two forms—in the masculine, 
TIN piss WN, (ish el auchiv,) a man to his brother ; 
and in the feminine, ADS DN MWR, (ishah el aco- 
thah,) a woman to her sister. In the masculine form, 
it occurs twenty-five times in the Hebrew Scripttres 
and in the feminine, ten. _ I will adduce the several 
instances, for the satisfaction of the reader. He will 
perceive, that the Hebrew writers never intend by it a 
brother, or a sister, in the literal sense, but always, one 
thing to another of the same kind ; that, if applied to 


* We hope that the sight of a few Hebrew words, on this and seve- 
ral of the following pages, will not deter the mere English reader > bite 
perusing them. 


THE LAW OF INCEST: 109 


men, it denotes—not a man to his brother,—but one 
man to another ; if to women,—not a woman to her 
sister,—but one woman to another, and if to the cur- 
tains of the tabernacle, one curtain to another, §c. 

-L. Gen. xiii. 11. “And Abraham and Lot separated 
themselves—the one from the other”—In the Hebrew, 
TIS >¥7a WNX,—literally, @ man from his brother, 
correctly, one man from another : or one from another. 

2. Gen. xxvi. 31, “ And Abimelech and Isaac sware 
—one to another”—In the Hebrew, TN WN,—lite- 
rally, a man to his brother—correctly, one man to 
another. 

. Gen. xxxvii. 19, “ And they said one to another,” 
ais the Hebrew, 8 DN Wx—literally, aman to 
his brother, correctly, one man to another. 

A, Gen. xlii. 21, The same as the last. 

5. Gen. xlii. 28, The same as the last. 

6. Exod. x. 23, “ And the Egyptians saw not—one 
another” —In the Hebrew, VT8 FS WN,—literally, a 
man his brother, correctly, one man, another. 

7. Exod. xvi. 15, “ And the children of Israel said one 
to another”—In the Hebrew, TIS a8 wN,— literally, 
—a man to his brother,—correctly, one man to 
another. 

8. Exod. xxv. 20, “And the faces of the cherubim shall 
look—one to another” —In the Hebrew, 118 aN WN, 
—literally, a man to his brother,—correctly, one face 
to another. 

9. Exod. xxvi. 3, “The five curtains shall be 
coupled together—one to another”—In the Hebrew, 
TMS DN “TYN—literally, a woman to her sister,—— 
correctly, one curtain to another. 

10. Exod. xxvi. 3, “ And other five curtains 


shall be coupled—one to another”—In the Hebrew, 
10 


ten 


110 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


OMS Biss TON,— literally, a woman to her sister— 
correctly, one curtain to another. 

11. Exod, xxvi. 5, “'That the loops may take hold 
—one of another”—In the Hebrew, BEIM WS TDR, 
—literally, a woman of her sister—correctly, one loop of 
another. 

12. Exod. xxvi. 6, “And couple the curtains together” 
—In the Hebrew, rata ms 5m TWN, literally, a woman 
to her sister—correctly, one curtain to another. 

13. Exod. xxvi. 17, “'T'wo tenons shall be set-—one 
against another”—In the Hebrew, TOMS Bs) MUN, 
—literally, a@ woman against her sister —correctly, 
one tenon against another. 

14. Exod. xxxvii. 9, “ The cherubim stood with their 
faces—one to another” —In the Hebrew, TT8 dS D™N, 
—literally, a man to his brother—correctly, one face to 
another. 

15. Lev. vii. 10, “ One, as much as another, ”__In 
the Hebrew, TIN5 WN,— literally, a man as his bro- 
ther—correctly, one man as another. 

16. Lev. xvii. 18, “ Neither shalt thou take a wife to 
her sister”—(in the margin, “ one wife to another”)— 
In the Hebrew, AMS as MWN,—literally, @ woman 
to her sister,—correctly, one wife to another. 

17. Lev. xxv. 14, “Ye shall not oppress—one 
another”—In the Hobiow: PS ais WN,— literally, 
a man, his brother-—correctly, one man, another. 

18. Lev. xxv. 46, “Ye shall not rule—one over 
another ”—In the Helirew! VIS i N,—literally, a 
man over his brother—correctly, one man over another. 

19. Lev. xxvi. 37, “And they shall fall—one upon 
another”—In the Hebrew, VND WX,— literally, @ 


man, upon his brother—correctly, one man, upon 
another. 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 111 


+ 


20. Num. xiv. 4, “And the Israelites said—one to 
another”—the same as No. 7. 

21. Deut. xxv. 11, “ When men strive together—one 
with another”—In the Hebrew, 7781 0", — literally, 
aman, with his brother—correctly, one man, with 
another. 

22. Neh. iv. 19, “We are separated—one far from 
another”—In the Hebrew, VIS WN,— literally, a 
man from his bro: her,—correctly, one man, from 
another. 

23. Job xli. 17, “'The scales of Leviathan are joined 
——one to another”—In the Hebrew, VIISD DX— 
literally, a man, to his brother—correctly, one scale, 
to another. 

24. Jer. xiii. 14, “ And I will dash them—one 
against another”—In the Hebrew, 1778 SS DR 
literally, a man against his brother—correctly, one 
man, against another. 

25. Jer. xxv. 26, “ And all the kings of the north— 
one with another”—In the Hebrew, TTS Biss Dw— 
literally, a man, with his brother—correctly, one king, 
with another. 

26. Jer. xxxiv. 14, “Letye go, every man his brother, 
that is an Hebrew”—-In the Hebrew, TTR OR we, 
—literally, a man, his brother—correctly, one man, 
another. 

27 & 23. Ezek.i.9, and 11, “ Their wings were joined 
—one to another”—In the Hebrew, ATMs ats MD, 
—literally, a woman, to her sister—correctly, one wing 
to another. 

29, Ezek. i. 23, “ And their wings were straight—one 
towards another ;’—In the Hebrew, roteaimtss 5m Mw, 
—literally, a woman, towards her sister—correctly, 
one wing, towards another. 


112 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


30. Ezek. iii. 13, “ The wings of the living creatures 
touched one another” —In the Hebrew, TDM DS TON, 
—literally, @ woman, her sister —correctly, one Wink, 
another. , 

31. Ezek. iv. 17, “And be astonished—one with 
another”—In the Hebrew, 1778 W7N,— literally, a 
man, with his brother—correctly, one man, with 
another. 

32. Ezek. xxiv. 23, “And moum, one towards 
another”—In the Hebrew, 1778 DN w~,— literally, 
a man, towards his brother—correctly, one man, 
towards another. 

33. Ezek. xxxiii. 30, “ And speak, one to another” 
—In the Hebrew, TTR ON 7N,— literally, a man, 
to his brother—correctly, one man, to another. 

34. Ezek. xlvii. 14, “ And ye shall inherit it—one as 
well as another”—In the Hebrew, VTS) Dx— 
literally, a man, as well as his brother—correctly, one 
man, as well as another. 

35. Joel ii. 8, “ Neither shall one thrust another” — 
In the Hebrew, T7778 wx~,— literally, Neither shall @ 
man thrust his brother—correctly, Neither shall one 
man thrust another. 

This phrase, in the masculine form—a man to his 
brother—occurs also, in connection with 7729 WX, 
literally, a@ man, his companion, in four other in- 
stances: Exod. 32. 27, Isaiah 19. 2, Jer. 31. 34, and 
34.17. 'To show its meaning in this connection, also, 
I need cite but one of the passages: Exod. 32. 27, 
“ And Moses said to all the sons of Levi, go throughout 
the camp and slay every man his brother, and every 
man his companion, and every man his neighbour.” 
-—-As the tribes did not intermarry, and the sons of 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 113 


Levi were directed to slay none but persons belonging to 
the other eleven tribes; it is obvious that the phrase a man, 
his brother, when thus connected, has no allusion to a 
brother by consanguinity ; but denotes as elsewhere 
one man, another, or perhaps, from the repetition of 
the thought, one man, several others. 

The similar phrase 4499 WR, @ man, his com- 
panion, in the masculine form, occurs in nineteen in- 
stances: Gen. 11. 3, and 7, Ex. 18. 7, and 16, and 21. 
18, Judges 6. 29, Ruth 3.14; 1 Sam. 10, 11, and 20. 
Al, bis; 2 Kings 3. 23, and 7. 3, 6,9; 2 Chron. 2v. 
23; Esth. 9. 19, 22; Isaiah 3.5; Jer. 36. 16, and 46. 
16; Mal. 3. 16.—In the feminine form, TADS AORN, 
@ woman, her companion, it occurs in four instances : 
Isaiah 34. 15,16; Jer. 9.20; and Zech. 11.9. In 
each of these instances its precise Meaning is one, 
another. 

The similar phrase 77729 Wk, a man, his neigh- 
bour, occurs in Lev. 19. 11, and Lev. 25.17; and in 
both signifies one, another. That it has the exact 
meaning of 778 wos, a man, his brother, is proved 
from its use in the latter instance: in Lev. 25. 14, “Ye 
shall not oppress one another,” VTS WS, a man, his 
brother, and in Lev. 25. 17, “ Ye shall not oppress one 
another,” ID779 Os, a man, his neighbour. These 
three phrases, therefore, have a common meaning. 

The thirty-five instances, which I have recited, are, 
with the exception of the four, mentioned in the last 
paragraph but two, all the instances, in which the phrase 
in question occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures. In twenty- 
five, it is in the masculine form, VTS WN, a man, his 
brother ; and in ten, in the feminine form, ACIS mo, 
a woman, her sister. Of these, twenty-one are in the 


10° 


114 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


Pentateuch, eight in Ezekiel, three in Jeremiah, one in 
Nehemiah, one in Job, and one in Joel. In ¢thirty- 
two of these instances the phrase is actually rendered 
one another ; in one the 12th, it is rendered fogether, 
which is precisely equivalent to one to another ; and in 
one, the 26th, it is rendered,—“ Let ye go, every man 
his brother, that is an Hebrew.”—This deviation from 
the common rendering, however, was adopted,—not to | 
express the relationship of brother, for the command is 
addressed to the Hebrews as a nation concerning their 
Hebrew slaves; but to avoid an awkwardness which 
would have attended the customary rendering in this 
instance—Let ye go, every man, another, that is an 
Hebrew. In thirty-four instances, then, out of the 
thirty-five, this phrase is actually rendered, and with 
absolute precision, by one to another—one man to an- 
other, one woman to another, one curtain to another, 
one wing to another, one face to another, one tenon to 
another, one loop to another, one scale to another, one 
king to another, one thing of any kind to another, 
wherever two things of a kind are brought together— 
and, in no one instance, is the word brother or sister 
thus used to express relationship by blood. In the 
thirty-fifth also, the instance in question, it is rendered 
by our translators in the margin, one woman to an- 
other.* 

The question then recurs, How are we to interpret 
this phrase, in this only remaining instance of the thirty- 


* If the English Translators had in every instance rendered the He- 
brew literally, by a man to his brother, or a woman to her sister the phrase 
would have long since become naturalized in English, and have denoted 
just what it denotes in Hebrew one to another. By thus rendering it 
in thirty-four instances and not in the thirty-fifth, they have led the 
mere English reader into sad mistakes and perplexities, 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 115 


five, Ley. xvii. 18. That every candid mind—not 
committed either in feeling or in fact—must be ready 
on this evidence to decide that the phrase is a Hebrew 
idiom, and denotes one woman to another, 1 cannot 
doubt. Yet before summing up the evidence I will state 
a parallel case. 

The parallel case is the following. In one of Cicero’s 
Letters to his Son at Athens, you may look for the fol- 
lowing direction—“ Nunquam uxori nubas !’—At the 
first sight of this illustrious sanction of celibacy, many a 

-bachelor will triumph ; while those single ladies, who 
read Latin, will scarcely believe their own eyes.— May 
you never marry a wife !—Impossible ! Could Marcus 
Tullius,—himself a married man,-—write thus to his 
Son !/—-Well might he imagine his Country, Italy and 
the whole Republic to fasten their astonished eyes upon 
him and cry out, “ Marce Tulli, quid agis 2—To be 
sure of the meaning, the Bachelor consults his dictionary, 
and finds that no scholar, male or female, can deny that 
the meaning of nunguam is never,—of nubas, may you 
marry,—(or may you be married to,—) and of uxori, 
a wife. Satisfied with the investigation, he lays down 
his Ainsworth, more confirmed in his purpose than be- 
fore—Not so fast, Sir!—The selfish and incorrigible 
shall not triumph eternally.—Look into your Pliny; and 
read, in one of his letters, an account of three of your 
own fraternity at Rome: an account, short indeed, but 
terminating in each instance with the pithy and ominous 
conclusion—“ wrort nupsit !’—Do you start, lest you, 
too, should come, by analogy, to the same end :—look 
a little more minutely at his account of the last of the 
three—* Non uxorem duit, sed, O fallacem ceelibis 
spem! uxori nupsit !’—He did not take a wife; but 
O how a bachelor’s hopes are blasted! he married a 


116 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


wife /—Will this do? Did Pliny utter such a palpa- 
ble contradiction ?—Look again into your Ainsworth, 
and under Nubo or Uzor, learn your doom.—“ Uzxori 
nupsv”’—not, I have married a wife, but—* I am mar- 
ried toawife:? “ Uxori nubere,” “to marry your 
master,” “to get under petticoat government,” “ to be 
heripecked.” With this illustration, you will find uth s 
narratives painfully intelligible. 

I stop then to ask, whether any scholar could hesitate 
as to the meaning of Cicero’s advice to his Son, when 
he had found the phrase, Uxori nubere, three times so 
used in Pliny, as to have but one meaning. Can we 
usually explain a controverted phrase by more than 
three examples, in which its meaning is clear and in- 
disputable ; or rather, when we find three such examples, 
does not its meaning cease to be controverted. 

Our inquirer, however, anxious for a different result, 
examines the other Latin classics ; and would have been 
happy, as he met the phrase in question eigh¢ times in 
Terence, and once in Plautus, in Martial, and in Ovid, 
could he have found even one instance, in which it 
had not the same identical meaning. Looking over the 
fragments of Varro, he finds “ Uxort nubere” explain- 
ed by “Imperio uxoris parere.” Ainsworth, Robert 
Stephens, Facciolati, and all the modern lexiographers 
agree with Varro. As a last effort he searches the pages 
of Cicero, and resolves that the Roman Orator shall 
speak for himself. Here he discovers twenty other pas- 
sages in which the phrase occurs; but in every one it 
indisputably means to be henpecked. He also finds, 
by the help of Facciolati, that these various instances, 
amounting to thirty-four, are, with the one in question, 
the only instances, in which the phrase is used by any 
Roman author. On these facts, I ask any unbiassed 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 117 


man—What is the true meaning of “ Nunquam uxori 
nubas ?’—To this question every such man will reply, 
“Tt isa peculiar idiom of the Latin language, having 
a meaning of its own, which is to be determined by its 
customary use, as a phrase, among the best Latin 
writers.” —Every language abounds with such idioms, 
even upon this very subject. Thus the French say, 
“La poule plus haut que le cog chante :”—literally, 
The hen. crows louder than the cock—correctly, ‘ The 
grey mare is the better horse.” 

Let us, then, apply this rule to the case in hand. 
The controverted Hebrew phrase occurs eight times in 
Ezekiel, three times in Jeremiah, and once in Job, in 
Nehemiah, and in Joel. It also occurs twenty times in 
the Pentateuch, beside the passage in question ; and in 
each of these thirty-four instances, it is agreed to mean 
one to another, and to have no reference to relationship 
by blood. ‘These also are all the instances in which it 
does occur, singly, in the Hebrew Scriptures ; and in the 
four instances, in which it occurs, in connection with a 
similar phrase, it is agreed also to mean one to another, 
and to have no reference to relationship by blood. This 
phrase too, and three others* of a similar construction, 
are the customary, if not the only, mode of expressing 
one to another, in the Hebrew.—Buxtorf expressly 
mentions the phrase as an Hebrew idiom : explaining 
the masculine form by Unus ad alteruwm, and the 
feminine by Una ad alteram. With him agree Cas- 
tell, Robertson, Taylor, Eichhorn and Gesenius ; but for 
brevity, I will quote only Gesenius. Under the article 


* Two of these have been already mentioned.,. The third Nr 
Wd, literally man to man, correctly one to another, occurs in ] Sam. 
il, 25, and Hosea iv. 4, 


e$o4 Qte oe 


.- 


Ye wt 


es 


Rank Nasa! Lobe hoo / 


118 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


MS, a brother, he says, “Following after D"8, a man— 
it denotes one another ; alter, alter ;?* and under the 
article NIM, a sister, he says, “ With TWX, a woman, 
preceding, it denotes one another ; altera, altera.”t 
-—At the same time, there is scarcely an idiom of the 
Hebrew, the meaning of which can be determined by 
thirty-four clear indisputable examples of its use; and — “9 
except this, there is not an instance in the one or 
any other language, in which the meaning of a given 
phrase can be proved to be cdiomatic, by thirty-four 
such examples, with no epposing example of a different 
meaning, whose true meaning has been—I will not say 
controveried, but—for a moment doubted. Why it 
has been doubted in this, is obvious. On these facts, 
every unbiassed man will say, that the phrase in ques- 
tion is an Hebrew Idiom ; and that, in Leviticus xviii. 
18, it has the same meaning as every where else,— 
denoting, “ Neither shalt thou take one woman, or one 
wife, to another, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness 
beside the other, in her life-time.” 

But we have not yet done with this passage. The 
interpretation to which those are necessarily driven, who 
favour the marriage in question, is the following: Neither 
shalt thou take a second wife, who is the sister of thy 
Jirst wife, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness beside 
the other in her life-time: although thou mayest take 
one who is not her sister, because that will not vex her, 
and her sister also, after her death.—That it would 
ver a wife, to have her husband bring home her sister, 
as a second wife, is readily admitted ; but that it would 
not vex her to have her husband bring home a second 
wife who was not her sister,----will sound oddly in the 


* Gibb’s Gesenius, p. 25. 7 Gibb’s Gesenius, p. 25. 


THE LAW ON INCEST. 119 


ears at least of wives ; so oddly, that, even in opposi- 
tion to the most extended and laborious Hebrew criti- 
cism, and in spite of a chain of syllogisms which 
Aristotle himself would pronounce without a flaw, 
they will be ready, for reasons which all wives per- 
fectly understand, and which they feel too, to the very 

_ quick, to pronounce the interpretation, which involves 
this position, infallibly and incurably erroneous, and 

the position itself inevitably false. Nay so incredulous 
and incorrigible are they on this one point, that were 
they told it was in the very Bible itself, not one of them 
would believe it. We will then examine this position on 
its own merits. 

Were the idea of Incest wholly out of the question ; 
were Polygamy also lawful; and were a married woman 
under the necessity of seeing a second wife brought 
into the house as her partner; I have no hesitation to 
believe that cateris paribus, she would prefer a sister to 
a stranger. Without pretending, however, to any pecu- 
liar knowledge of the female heart, I find, in the very 
nature of the case, the most satisfactory evidence, that 
there would be far less danger of bitter rivalry between 
two sisters, than between two strangers. Sisters are 
usually more alike, than strangers, in person, complexion 
and features, and of course differ less as to personal 
beauty. Their education, habits, views, feelings, man- 
ners, and character, have a far greater resemblance. 
Their rank, fortune, connections, friends, and family 
interests, are one and the same; and of course would 
never be the occasion of jealousies and quarrels. Should 
quarrels arise, the family connections, instead of taking 
sides with one or the other, would unite to reconcile 
them. They are also attached to each other by early 


120 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


friendship, as well as by the indissoluble bond of natural 
affection. 

Let us now view the case of two females, thus con- 
nected, who are strangers. Less alike usually than 
sisters, in the endowments of body and mind; they 
have no other point of resemblance. They are des- 
cended from different lineage, have imbibed different 
prejudices, and have been educated in different families, 
under different parents and teachers, among different 
associates, to different views, feelings, principles, habits 
and characters. They have different personal and 
family friends, have no natural affection, no early 
friendship, no habits of kindness and confidence, no 
oneness of interests and wishes, to endear them to each 
other. They know each other only as rivals, in all 
which a wife can value. The first wife looks on the 
second merely as an intruder, whose only wish is to rob 
her of her husband’s affection and her own influence 
and happiness. ‘The second sees in the first a jealous 
adversary, always busy in disappointing her hopes and 
thwarting her purposes. 'Their feelings, interests and 
plans, are always in collision. ‘There is nothing in the 
past, the present or the future, to take off the edge of 
jealousy, or to prevent the growth of hatred. In such 
circumstances, peace is impossible. In their personal 
quarrels, their family connections will take sides. The 
relations of each will support her influence, her interests, 
and her rights, at the expence of her rival. She, who 
had the humbler birth, whose connections are the least 
respectable and powerful, who brought the smaller for- 
tune, who is the inferior in education, in manners, in 
personal beauty and accomplishments, in mental en- 
dowments and acquisitions, who is either without child- 
ren, or has the smaller number, or those of the least 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 121 


promise, will never be allowed to forget her disadvantage. 
Who does not see, in all these distinctions, ‘perpetual 
sources of jealousy and hatred. \ Yet while two sisters 
escape them almost all, they also feel the numerous 
and powerful inducements to harmony already recited. 
Far indeed am I from suggesting, that these induce- 
ments would be sufficient. In the house of Polygamy, 
harmony cannot reside. Still it is obvious, that. the 
causes for rivalry and contention, between {wo sis- 
ters, would be incomparably fewer, than between to 
strangers. 'Thus, in examining, on its own merits, 
the position, necessarily taken by those whom I oppose, 
— That it will not vex awife, if her husband marries 
a second wife, who is not her sister ; we perceive that 
it is obviously false ; nay, that the very reverse of this 
position is true; and that the causes of vexation would 
be far greater than if he married her sister. 

But it is said, with confidence, that the Scriptures 
have furnished us with a Narrative, relating to this 
subject, in the marriage of Jacob with Rachel and 
Leah, which illustrates. and supports this position. As 
this case is constantly and confidently appealed to in sup- 
port of this interpretation, we will examine it with at- 
tention. The result of the examination will prove, if I 
mistake not, that, although there were many causes of 
rivalry and contention in the case of Rachel and Leah, 
which would not ordinarily attend the marriage of two 
sisters; still, even in that case, there was far less of 
rivalry and contention, than exists in the marriage of 
two women who are not sisters. 

Rachel was young, and, to the eyes of Jacob, very 
lovely, when he first saw her, at the well of Haran. At 
this interview, Jacob’s gallantry and manly spirit, and 


Rachel’s courteousness and personal beauty, inspired 
11 


122 THE LAW OF INCEST. © 


them with a mutual affection, not often parallelled for 
its ardour or its strength. He served Laban seven years, 
that he might receive Rachel as his wife; “and they 
seemed to him but a few days, for the love that he had 
to her.” —“ And Jacob said unto Laban, ‘Give me my 
wife ; for my days are fulfilled.’ And Laban gathered 
together all the men of the place, and made a feast. 
And in the evening, he took Leah his daughter, and 
brought her to Jacob, instead of Rachel.” The mar- 
riage ceremonies of the country rendered such a decep- 
tion not only possible, hey — What during that 
night, were the feelings of Rachel towards Leah! Her 
husband, betrothed to her for seven years, and inex- 
pressibly endeared by his affection and tenderness, cruelly 
stolen from her, at the moment so long anticipated by 
her with cheerfulness and joy, by him with impatience 
and transport :—stolen from her without his knowledge 
or consent, and with the agonizing mistake on his part, 
that /erself was then with him :—stolen by a sister 
whom Jacob had never loved, by a sister who had 
fraudulently supplanted her in her bridal bed !—“ And 
it came to pass that, in the morning, behold it was 
Leah! !/’—What was the anguish of Jacob’s mind, 
when he rose up in the morning, and said unto Laban, 
“ What is this, that thou hast done tome? Did I not 
serve thee for Rachel? Wherefore hast thou beguiled 
me?”’—Who can wonder that “Leah was hated” by 
Jacob, or that Rachel was still more tenderly loved. 
Who could wonder, if Rachel had despised Leah, or if 
Leah had been envious of Rachel. Surely it needed 
all the strength of sisterly affection and parental influ- 
ence, to save them from unceasing jealousy and rancour. 
—What then was the fact ?—The story is told us in 
Gen. xxix. 31,—xxx. 21. Yet we find no recital of 


? 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 123 


uncommon bickerings, or of peculiar unhappiness. We 
are simply told that Jacob at first hated Leah, and loved 
Rachel ; that Rachel envied Leah her children, and 
said to Jacob “Give me children, or else I die ;” and 
that when Rachel asked Leah for the fruit ide 
Reuben from the field, she replied, “Is it a small matter 
that thou hast taken my husband; and wouldest thou 
take my son’s mandrakes also 2” 

But we have another case of polygamy in the Scrip- 
tures, that of Elkanah of Mount Ephraim, who had two 
wives, Hannah and Pen nah, who were not sisters. 
Hannah, like Rachel, was loved by her husband, and 
like her had no children. Peninnah, like Leah, had 
children, and, like her, triumphed over her associate, 
No two cases could be more nearly parallel. Peninnah, 
however, had not supplanted Hannah on the bridal 
night. The distress of Hannah is described in 1 Sam. 
i. 1,—ii. 11. Irefer the reader to the two cases, as de- 
tailed at length, with perfect confidence that the vera- 
tions of Hannah were far more intense than those of 
Rachel. 

Let him particularly notice the appearance of Hannah 
in the temple: “ And when the time was, that Elkanah 
offered, he gave to Peninnah his wife, and to all her 
sons and daughters, portions ; but unto Hannah he gave 
a worthy portion, for he ioved Hannah, but she had no 
children. And her adversary also provoked her sore, for 
to make her fret, because she had no children. And he 
did so year by year. When she went up to the house 
of the Lord, so she provoked her; therefore she wept, 
and did not eat. Then said Elkanah her husband to 
her ‘Hannah, why weepest thou; am I not better to 
thee than ten sons ?—So Hannah rose up, after they 
had eaten in Shiloh, and after they had drunk: (now 


124 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


Eli the priest sat upon a seat, by a post of the termple of 
the Lord :) and she was in bitterness of soul, and prayed 
unto the Lord, and wept sore. And she vowed a vow, 
and said, ‘O Lord of hosts! if thou wilt indeed look on 
the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and 
not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine 
handmaid a man-child; then will I give him unto the 
Lord all the days of his life, and there shall no razor 
come upon his head’—-Now Hannah she spake in her 
heart, only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard : 
therefore Eli thought she had been drunken. And Eli 
said unto her, ‘How long wilt thou be drunken? Put 
away thy wine from thee.—And Hannah answered 
and said, ‘No, my lord; Iam a woman of a sorrowful 
_spirit; I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink ; 
but have poured out my soul before the Lord. Count 
not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial; for out of 
the abundance of my complaint and grief have I spoken 
hitherto.’ ” 

Here, then, in the house of Elkanah, where the twe 
wives were not sisters, we find the distress introduced 
by polygamy incomparably more intense and agoniz- 
ing, than in the house of Jacob. This too was the 
fact, though the circumstances of Hannah and Rachel 
on the one part, and those of Leah and Peninnah on 
the other, were generally the same; and though the 
original substitution of Leah bade fair to kindle in the 
mind of Rachel an irreconcilable hatred. But what is 
the position under consideration— That it will ver a 
wife, uf her husband marries her sister ; but that it 
will not vex her, if he marries a stranger. In other 
words, the polygamy of Elkanah was no cause of 
grief or vexation ta Hannah ; she was perfectly core 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 125 


tented and happy under it, because Peninnah was 
not her sister! ! 

I appeal then with confidence to every reader, male 
as well as female, that the position assumed in this in- 
terpretation is false; and that the interpretation repre- 
sents God as assigning both a foolish, and a false 
reason, for the permission of polygamy. Examined on 
its own merits, therefore, it proves to be erroneous.* 

Our investigation of Lev. xviii. 18, and of the inter- 
pretation of it to which we are driven, if we admit mar- 
riage with a wife’s sister to be lawful, viz.— Neither 
shalt thou take another wife, who is the sister of thy 
first wife, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness beside 
the other in her life-time, although thou mayest take 
one who is not her sister, because that will not vex her, 
and after her death, her sister also—has brought us 
then to the following results : 

1. Polygamy was expressly prohibited by God in the 
Original Law of Marriage, on account of its immoral 
tendency ; has been shown to have been unlawful to the 
Patriarchs and under the Levitical code ; and is declared 
by Christ to be adultery. 

2. The Law of incest, in expressly forbidding mar- 
riage between a brother's wife and a husband’s bro- 
ther, just as certainly forbad it between a sister’s hus- 
band and a wife’s sisier, as in expressly forbidding 
marriage between a nephew and an aunf, or between a 


* Mohammed had either too much reverence, or too much sense, to 
assign so foolish and so false a reason for forbidding a man to marry 
his wife’s sister. As he authorized polygamy, he prohibited this mar- 
riage simply on the account of the incest. In thus comparing the re- 
spective claims of the institutions of Mohammed, and those of the sys- 
tem which we oppose, to the character of purity and even of common 
decency, it is painful to find in every case that the prophet of Mecca 
has the advantage. 


0, VA Y.f Aerrectf2 


126 THE LAW OF INCEST. ou 
mother and a son, it forbad it between an wncle and a 
niece, or between a father anda daughter. If we deny 
this, we must also deny that equals are equal. 

3. The Law of incest in expressly forbidding mar- 
riage between a man and his collaterals of the second 
degree by affinity, declares the propinquity between 
them to be so great, as to render marriage between 
them unlawful; and yet this interpretation makes it 
declare the propinquity between a man and his wife’s 
sister, a collateral of the first degree, and of course one 
degree nearer than they, not to be so great as to ren- 
der marriage between them unlawful: in other words, 
that the less is greater than the greater. 

4. If we deny the unlawfulness of this marriage, we 
are also compelled to admit that under the Levitical Law 
of incest a man had a right to marry his own daughter, 
and his own grandmother; and that these marriages 
are now right. 

5. The reason, expressly assigned in the Law, why a 
brother’s wife may not marry a husband's brother 
after the husband’s death is that, on account of the 
propinquity, such marriage is “‘an’ abomination ;” and 
yet the reason assigned in this interpretation, why a 
sister's husband may not marry a wife’s sister, during 
the life-time of the wife, that is why he may not have 
two sisters for wives at once, when the propinquity is iden- 
tically the same, isthatit will vex the sister whom he mar- 
ried first! We cannot chargesuch trifling ona Law of God. 

6. A minute and careful examination of every pas- 

sage in the Scriptures, in which the controverted. phrase, 
aman to his brother, or a woman to her- sister occurs, 
has shown that the re brother and sister in this 
phrase have no reference to relationshi ip by blood ; and 
that the phrase itself denotes uniformly one to Prather: 


oN 9 conan ~ 


i ee: nat a me we 


THE LAW OF INCEST. . 127 


and, in the given passage, one woman to another, or 
one wife to another. 

7. The position assumed in the interpretation—that 
it will not vex a wife, to have her husband take ano- 
ther wife, who is not her sister, has been shown to be 
not only ridiculously foolish, but certainly and palpably 
false. 

Hence, until we are prepared to admit a construc- 
tion of a public statute of the Divine Law, which re- 
peals the Great Original Law of Marriage, given by 
God to the whole Human Race, on purpose, as he him- 
self tells us, to promote morality and religion among 
men; which, in opposition to the whole tenor of Scrip- 
ture, permits Polygamy, though God himself declares 
it to be immoral in its tendency ; which assigns for this 
repeal and this permission, a reason at once foolish and 
false ; which declares a given degree of propinquity to 
be less than another degree, to which it is mathemati- 
cally equal, and to be less than several other degrees, 
which with mathematical certainty are greater than it: 
in other words, that equals are not equal, and that the 
less is greater than the greater ; which makes it law- 
ful under the Levitical Code for a man to marry his own 
daughter and his own grandmother ; and which re- 
quires us to reject a meaning of a Hebrew idiom, sup- 
ported by thirty-four clear examples, and to adopt one, 
which has not a solitary example to support it; we 
must reject the proposed construction, and conclude 
that Lev. xviii. 18, is a simple prohibition of Polygamy ; 
that it does not remotely affect the Law of incest ; and 
that the prohibitions of that Law are just as we have 
stated them, in our examination of its several provisions. 

We are thus brought to the Second General Ques- 
~ tion, 


* 


&s 
7 


€ or ey 4 


beg 


128 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


IL Is rar Law oF INCEST NOW IN FORCE? 


It is singular, as well as mortifying, that in a Chris- 
tian country, it should be necessary to discuss the ques- 
tion— Whether it is right for a man to marry his mother 
or his daughter 2—Yet principles, involving a negative 
answer to this question, have been, in the progress of 
this controversy, frequently advanced, and maintained. 

If any of the prohibitions of the law of incest are 
now in force, they are a// in force. No Statute, repeal- 
ing a part of the Law and confirming the rest, has ever 
been published. There is nothing, plainly, either in 
the Old Testament, or the New, which designates indi- 
vidual prohibitions, as applicable exclusively to the Is- 
raelites, or which intimates that the Gentiles were to 
be bound by some of them, and not by others. There 
is nothing too, in the nature of the case, which enables 
us to adopt a part, and reject a part. The Bible, to 
those, who receive it as the word of God, is the only 
rule of faith and practice. If the Bible pronounces In- 
cest a sin, as practised by us; to us itisa sin. If it 
does not pronounce it a sin, as practised by us; to us it 
is not asin. The Bible teaches us “all things neces- 
sary for life and godliness ;” and we are not left to the 
light of nature, to determine what is, and what is not, 
asin. The light of nature, also, teaches nothing defi- 
nite on the subject. Those nations, which have not 
possessed the Bible, have not usually regarded Incest 
as a sin; and those which have, have never agreed 
with each other as to its ex/ent. It was obviously no 
sin, in the immediate sons of Adam and Eve, to marry 
their sisters ; and, if God had not prohibited incestuous 
marriages, it would have been always equally lawful. 
Impressions and prejudices growing out of education, or 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 129 


traditions or national customs, are here wholly destitute . 
of authority. Our own desires and passions are no 

criterion of right and wrong. The fact, that I feel no 

wish to marry my mother, or my sister, does not prove 

it to be wrong; and the fact, that I feel a wish to marry 

my wife's sister, or my wife’s niece, does not prove it 
to be right. The decisions of no individuals, as well as 

of no bodies of men, whether legislatures, courts, or 

councils, can have the least authority, in constituting 

any marriage a sin, which is not pronounced a sin by 

the Law of God. If they could; the same act would be 

a sin in one age, in one country and one church, and a 

righteous act in another. If, then, the prohibitions of 
the Law of Incest are not all of them now obligatory, it 

is perfectly right for a man to marry his sister, his 

daughter, or his mother. To the great body of the 

community, this single consideration will render the re- 

mainder of the discussion unnecessary. 

In attempting to prove that the Law of incest is now 
binding, we are met in the threshold with various diffi- 
culties arising from the fact thal it was a part of the 
Levitical Law. 'These need to be disposed of, before 
we offer any direct proof that it is now obligatory. We 
are constrained therefore, in establishing this point, to 
commence with negative evidence; and afterwards to 
present that which is direct and positive. 

I. THe Fact THAT THE Law oF INCEST IS A 
PART OF THE LevitricaL Law, Is NO OBJECTION TO 
ITS BINDING FORCE. 

The Levitical Law consisted of two great divisions : 
the Ceremonial or Ecclesiastical Law, and the Civil or 
Municipal Law. 

Those, who urge this objection, have alleged, 
either---- That the Law of incest was a part of the 


130 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


_ Ceremonial Law; or--- That it was a part of the Civil 
Law of Israel ; or---That, if the Law itself is bind- 
ing, so is its Penalty. 

I. The objection, that the Law of Incest is a part of 
the Ceremonial Law, furnishes no evidence that it is not 
now obligatory. 

The CeremoniaL Law was THE CONSTITUTION 
oF THE IsRAELITISH CuuRCH: establishing its Priest- 
hood and Ritual, its Ceremonies and Observances. It 
had nothing in it of a moral nature,{was never binding 
except on the Israelites, and was expressly abrogated as 
to its binding force on them, by its Divine Author at the 
commencement of the Christian Dispensation. 

That the Law of incest is a part of the Ceremonial 
Law, is argued on the following grounds. 

1. That the nameless crime forbidden in Lev. xviii. 

_ 19, and xx. 18, is clearly a mere ceremonial offence ; 
and that, as the crime of Incest is found in the same con- 
nection, and in the same chapters with it, it must there- 
fore be a ceremonial offence. 

Were we to admit the crime in question to be a cere- 
monial offence ; the fact, that it is mentioned in the same 
connection, and in the same chapters, with Incest, would 
not prove that Incest is a ceremonial offence. In Lev. 
xvii. and xx. are mentioned in precisely the same con- 
nection, the seven crimes of adultery, polygamy, Incest, 
the crime in question, sodomy, bestiality, and sacrificing 
one’s own children to Moloch ; and, in the 20th chapter, 
the two additional crimes of idolatry, and cursing a pa- 
rent. ‘These are all prohibited, under the penalty of 
death. ‘The crime of bestiality, also is mentioned no 
where else, but in these two chapters and in Exodus xxii, 
19; whereas Incest is prohibited in two other chapters 
of the Pentateuch. But the fact, that the crime in ques- 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 131 


tion is found in the same connection with the crime last 
mentioned, and with adultery, idelatry, sodomy, the curs- 
ing of a parent, and the sacrificing of one’s children, does 
not prove that they were ceremonial offences; and, of 
course, it does not prove that incest was such an offence. 

In Lev. xix., prohibitions of idolatry, stealing, cheat- 
ing, lying, perjury, profanity, fraud, robbery, slander, 
adultery, and profanation of the Sabbath, are found inter- 
mixed with clauses, prohibiting the gendering of diverse 
cattle, the mingling of diverse seed, the wearing of lin- 
sey-woolsey, the rounding of the corners of the head, the 
marring of the corners of the beard, the cutting of the 
flesh, and the marking of it for the dead :—the latter 
all indisputably ceremonial offences :—yet this fact does 
not prove, that the former were offences of that charac- 
ter ; and of course, were this true of Incest, it would fur- 
nish no evidence, that it was a ceremonial offence. , 

But the position, continually taken for granted, that 
the crime in question was a mere ceremonial offence, is 
wholly denied; and would those, who thus take it for 
granted, attempt to prove it, they would find it no easy 
task. 'That it was not such an offence, is evident from 
various considerations. 1. It had noconnection, near or 
remote, with any part of the regulations of the ceremo- 
nial law. 2. The punishment, death, proves that it 
was not a ceremonial offence. Severe punishments 
were indeed threatened in various cases, to those, who, 
being ceremonially unclean, should venture to appear in 
that condition i the tabernacle, and engage in the 
worship of God; but death is never we believe threat- 
ened for Ceremonial uncleanness merely, nor for any of- 
fence merely ceremonial. 3. The nature of the case 
proves it to have been an offence of a very different char- 
acter. Were any individual to ask himself the question ; 


ig 
“4 * 
.f caw 


132 _. THE LAW OF INCEST: 


Why are sodomy and bestiality, crimes of so enormous 
a magnitude ?---the answer would probably be, That 
they both imply, and produce, a moral degradation and 
brutism so entire and hopeless, that he, who can commit 
them, proves himself, 7pso facto, hopelessly abandoned. 
The same jis true of the crime in question ; and, could 
the fact be fully ascertained, I am satisfied that it would 
appear, that savage nations, and those civilized nations, 
which have been grossly licentious, have far more exten- 
sively regarded the latter crime with instinctive loathing 
and abhorrence, than either of the former, particularly 
~ than the first. 4. The nine crimes, recited above, are 
expressly mentioned, in Ley. xviii. and xx. as the crimes, 
for which the Canaanites were exterminated. That these 
crimes differ from each other, in their degrees of enormi- 
ty, is certain; yet they are all recited by the Divine 
Law-giver, without distinction, as the causes of that 

xterminatlon----“ For in all these, the nations are 
defiled, which I cast out before you; and the land is 
defiled: therefore do I visit the iniquity of the land upon 
it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.” 
These crimes are all coupled together ; and, for the com- 
mission of the crime in question, as truly as of the other 
eight, it is declared, that the Canaanites were cut off. 
But, if so, it certainly was not a Ceremonial offence : for 
the Canaanites could no more commit such an offence 
than we can, as they were never under the Ceremonial 
law. 5. The character given of this, in connection 
with the eight other crimes, proves that it is not a ceremo- 
nial offence. It is declared, with them, to be “an ini- 
quity ” “a land-defiling sin,” “ an abomination,” and 
“an abominable custom ;” and that, as committed by 
the Canaanites, as truly as by the Israelites. This could 
not have been said of a ceremonial sin. 6. In Ezekiel 


t 
’ 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 4 133 


xxii. 10, it is declared that the Jews, by their repeated 


commissions of this very sin, and of murder, idolatry, 
oppression, incest, and adultery, had proved themselves 
so hopelessly abandoned, that God would scatter them 
among the heathen, and disperse them among the 
countries. 

2. It is alleged that Incest is a Ceremonial offence, be- 
cause it is not probibited in the Moral Law, or the Law 
of the Ten Commandments. | 

The Seventh Commandment of the Moral Law either 
prohibited all unlawful sexual intercourse, or it pro- 
hibited nothing but adultery in the strict sense.—If it 
prohibited all unlawful sexual intercourse, as Incest 
was such intercourse, it prohibited Incest; and Incest, 
therefore, was not a Ceremonial offence.—If it prohibited 
nothing but adultery in the strict sense, then it did 


. . . . . . % 3 
not prohibit fornication, rape, sodomy or bestiality. But, _ 
in that case, the fact, that these four crimes are not pro- 


hibited in the Moral Law, does not prove them to be 
ceremonial offences; the same fact, therefore, does not 
prove Incest to be a ceremonial offence. 

3. It is said that the Law- of Incest is not revived in 
the New Testament, and that of course it is a part of 
the Ceremonial Law. What the fact is, in this case, 
we shall see hereafter. At present, it will be sufficient 
to remark, that the laws prohibiting rape and bestiality 
are not revived, nor is either of these crimes alluded ‘to, 
in the New Testament. Yet this fact does not prove 
them to be ceremonial offences; and, of course, if it 
were a fact, it would not prove Incest to be such an 
offence. 

A, That Incest is a Ceremonial Offence, is argued from 

12 


4 
SF 


‘3 
134 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


the Decree of the Council of the Apostles, Elders, and 
Brethren, held at Jerusalem. 

We have an account of this Council in the 15th 
Chapter of the Acts.* It was convened at Jerusalem, 
A. D. 52, to decide the question, Whether it was need- 
ful to circumcise the Gentile Converts, and to com- 
mand them to keep the Law of Moses? In this 
Council, Peter supported the negative side of the ques- 
tion. After observing that God had chosen, that the 
Gentiles should hear the Gospel through his mouth, 
and believe; and that God, who searches the hearts, 
had borne witness to the Gentiles, giving the Holy 
Ghost to them even as tothe Jews; and had put no 
difference between the two; he asks, Now, therefore, 
why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of 
the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were 
able to bear? As the observance of the rite of Circum- 
cision, which was a Ceremonial rite, and a very painful 
one, was the point in question ; and as Peter, in address- 
ing an assembly of Jews on that point, calls the law of 
Moses, which enjoined it, “a yoke, which neither we 
nor our fathers were able to bear,” it is most obvious 
that he is speaking of the Ceremonial Law, and of 
that exclusively. Plainly, it is impossible, that Peter 
could have called the observance of the Moral Precepts 
of the Levitical Code “a yoke, which neither we nor 
our fathers were able to bear.”—After this, when Paul 
and Barnabas had declared to the Council “the miracles 
and wonders which God had wrought among the Gen- 
tiles by them,” James, who was obviously the President 
of the Council, gave his own opinion. After alluding to 
the calling and actual conversion of the Gentiles, as a 


* Acts xv. 5—29. 


Pa 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 135 


glorious fulfilment of the prophecies relating to that 
event, and of the original purpose of God concerning it, 
he says, “ Wherefore my sentence is that we trouble not 
them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 
But that we write unto them that they abstain from pollu- 
tions of idols, and from fornication, and from things 
strangled, and from blood.”—To this the Council ac- 
ceded ; and addressed letters in the name of the apostles, 
elders, and brethren, to the Gentile Converts in Antioch, 
Syria, and Cilicia, to be carried by the hands of Barna- 
bas and Paul: in which, after stating the point in con- 
troversy thus—“Forasmuch as we have heard that 
certain, which went out from us, have troubled you 
with words, subverting your souls, saying, ‘ Ye must be 
circumcised, and keep the law:’ to whom we gave no 
such commandment :”—they announce their decision 
in the following terms :—“ It seemed good to the Holy | 
Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than — 
these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats 
offered to idols, and from blood, and from things 
strangled, and from fornication. From which, if ye 
keep yourselves, ye shall do well.”—It is contended that 
the three first prohibitions were ceremonial ; and, of 
course, that the subject of the fourth, “fornication,” 
and consequently the whole Levitical Law forbid- 
ding unlawful sexual intercourse, and among its 
other statutes the Law of incest, were also ceremonial. 
—To this argument we reply, 

1. The prohibition to eat blood was not ceremonial ; 
for the eating of blood never was permitted to Man, 
but was always forbidden. This will be obvious from 
the following facts: 1. It was not lawful before the 
Flood. The Curse, denounced against Adam and his 
posterity, prescribes ¢heir food in the following lan- 


. 
136 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


guage: ‘ Cursed is the ground for thy sake ; in sorrow 
shalt thou eat of it.—Thou shalt eat the herb of the 
field: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy 
bread, titl thou return to the ground.” They had no 
permission to eat flesh. 2. It was forbidden after the 
Flood to Noah and the Patriarchs. The first permis- 
sion given to Man to eat flesh was given to Noah: 
“ Hvery moving thing, that liveth, shall be meat for 
you: Even as the green herb (alluding to the grant to 
Adam) have I given you all things.” But God imme- 
diately subjoms, “ But flesh with the life thereof, 
which ts the blood thereof, ye shall not eat.” This is 
a law to Noah and his posterity. 3. This prohibition 
was renewed under the Levitical Code: Lev. xvii. Lt, 
14, “No soul of you shall eat blood :—For it is the life 
of all flesh: the blood of it is for the life thereof: there- 
fore, I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the 
blood of no manner of flesh ; for the life of all flesh is 
the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.” 
4. 'This prohibition is continued in this passage under 
the Christian Dispensation—Grod, therefore, has ex- 
pressly forbidden Man to eat blood from the begin- 
ning to the end of the world. 

2. The prohibition to eat things strangled is not 
ceremonial. Animats were strangled for the purpose 
of keepiny the blood in the body, to render them a 
greater delicacy. ‘The prohibition to eat blood ob- 
viously, therefore, included a prohibition to eat things 
strangled. 

3. I'he command here given to abstain “from pol- 
lutions of idols,” or, as it is afterwards expressed, “from 
meats offered to idols: ray eidwroberav, the sacrifices 
of idols ; cannot be considered as ceremonial. It was 
given, A. D. 52, and Paul was present. The directions 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 137. 


of Paul to the Corinthians relative to meats offered to 
idols, (1 Cor, x. 25—29,) were written A. D. 56, four 
years afterwards. ‘There is no discrepancy between 
them, because they relate to different subjects. The 
sacrifices to idols were so numerous, that the flesh of 
the animals, not burned on the altar, and not eaten at 
the idolatrous feast, was sold in the markets, and brought 
a large revenue to the priests. Of such meats Paul 
writes, ‘““ Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, 
asking no questions for. conscience’ sake. But if any 
man say unto you, ‘ This is offered in sacrifice to idols ;’ 
eat not, for his sake that showed it.”—But the fel 
of the Apostles, in commanding to abstain from meats 
sacrificed to idols, or from pollutions of idols, obvi- 
ously refer to eating those meats, in an idol’s temple 
at the idolatrous feast which followed the sacrifice, 
and in connection with the abominations then and 
there practised : conduct which would palpably coun- 
tenance the worship of the idol. This must be sinful 
under all circumstances ; and the command _prohibit- 
ing it could not be a ceremonial prohibition.* 


* Many commentators on this passage, (Acts xv. 5—29,) appear to 
us to have made for themselves and their readers, by the very course 
which they have pursued, most of the difficulties in which they have 
been involved :—particularly by their comments on the two phrases in 
verses 20 and 29, relating to sacrifices to idols. ‘The phrase, in verse 
20, is, in the Greek, T@v aArrynuxtav TAY cidwrwy, from the pol- 
lutions of idols ; and that, in verse 29, Tay eidwaraburay, things, or 
meats, sacrificed to idols. "They have regarded the latter phrase merely 
as explanatory of the former; whereas the former is as truly explana- 
tory of the latter. The phrase, 7% aA oynmate TOY eidorwY, 
denotes literally the abominations, or pollutions, of idols, and is certainly 
a strong expression of reprobation, Now we take upon ourselves to 
say, and without fear of contradiction, that when Paul (1 Cor. x. 25— 
29) told the Corinthians to eat suc regis as were sold in the market, 


Loe : 


+S a 


138 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


4, Had the three preceding commands been cere- 
monial; yet that prohibiting fornication would not 
have been of this character. If we take the word in 
its most limited sense, it surely needs no argument to 
prove, that a law, forbidding immoral iniercourse 
among the unmarried, is not a ceremonial, but in the 
strictest sense a moral, law. 

Hence no evidence can be derived from the decision 
of this Council, either directly, or by way of inference, 
that the Levitical Law, forbidding unlawful sexual 
intercourse, and particularly the Law of incest, was 
ceremonial. What, let me ask, are i2moralities, if for- 
nication, rape, sodomy, and bestiaJity are not—Besides; 
the Decision of the Council continues this very law in 
full force under the Christian Dispensation: and were 
we even to admit it to be ceremonial, it is still binding.* 


without asking whether they had been sacrificed to idols or not, and even, if 
they found that they had been, to eat them, unless a brother was offended, 
he would “never have called those meats, thus sold in the markets, ta 
araoynmara TOV sidwArwy, the abominations of idols. As he declares the 
eating of them a matter of perfect indifference, he could not have used this 
reprobatory language concerning them. Paul had no duplicity: he spake 
the same language at Corinth, and in Asia.—Should it be said that the 
latter phrase, that in verse 29, is the phrase, and the only phrase, used 
in the Letters of the Council; we admit it; but those Letters were 
carried by the hands of Barnabas and Paul, who were members of the 
Council, and of course were present with the churches, at the time of 
their delivery, to explain the full import of the Decree. 


* This account of this passage, (Acts xv. 5—29,) relieves it, (if we 
mistake not,) from the difficulties, which have so generally been thought 
to attend it. The whole truth of the case seems to be this. The 
Apostles and Elders were consulted on the question, Whether Cir- 
cumcision and the Ceremonial Law were obligatory on the Gentiles. The 
Apostles, being aware that the Gentiles were generally accustcmed 
to the use of blood for food, and to eat it at. their sacrifices, to regard 
things strangled as dainties, to partake of idolatrous feasts in the temples 
of idols, and to practise every species of unlaivful sexual intercourse, in 


at 


> - 
~ Y . 
vw" EP 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 139 


Among what description of offences, Incest is to be 
classed, will be seen further on. These remarks will 
be sufficient to satisfy the reader, that he, who attempts 
to class it among the offences of the Ceremonial Law, 
does so without argument or evidence. 

II. The fact, that the Law of incest was a part of the 
Civil or Municipal Law of Israel, furnishes no evidence 
that it is not now in force. 

Very vague and incorrect notions have been exten- 
sively entertained, with regard to the obligations of the 
Civil Law of Israel. Because the Law of God, as sum- 
med up in the I'wo GREAT CoMMANDMENTSs,* and 
as somewhat enlarged in the TEN ComMANDMENTs, 
has been so generaily entitled Tus Morar Law; many 
persons seem to have taken it for granted, that the Civil 
Law of Israel had nothing in it of a moral nature; and 
that the offences, which it forbad, were not immorali- 
ties. Nothing, however, can be more absolutely erro- 
neous. 

The Crvit Law or Israet was the ConsTIruTION 
oF THE IsRAELITISH STATE: establishing the Form 
of the Government with its Mode of Administration, 
and the Rights and Duties of rulers and subjects. The 


the most open and shameless. manner, in the very temples of their 
gods, and in immediate connection with their idolatrous worship ; (See 
Tholuck’s Influence of Heathenism, Bib. Repos. July, 1832, pp. 441— 
464 ;) and knowing that the Gentile Converts would be in imminent 
danger, from long habit, and from the force of example, of continuing 
these sinful practices; took the occasion offered by the formal reference of 
this dispute to them, while they exempted the Gentile Converts from the 
observance of Circumcision and of the whole Ceremonial Law, solemn- 
ly to charge them to abstain from the sinful practices here enumerated. 
Nothing obviously could have been more wise, or more appropriate. 


* To avoid a frequent repetition of circumlocutions, we shall call this 
law the Duologue. 


140 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


form of government actually established was a 'THEO- 
cracy ; in which JEHOVAH was as truly the acknow- 
ledged LORD, or SUPREME RULER, as, by the 
Ceremonial Law, he was the acknowledged GOD, or 
OBJECT OF SUPREME WORSHIP. From the 
time of the Exodus to the Coronation of Saul, about 
four hundred years, the administration of the Govern- 
ment was committed to a succession of Shophetim or 
Judges, (the same as the Su/ffetes of Carthage,) sum- 
moned individually to fill the office by a Divine call; 
and from that Coronation to the overthrow of the state, 
about four hundred and eighty years, to a line of 
Monarchs, begun by his appointment, and continued by 
hereditary succession. ‘The Judges and Kings were 
chief magistrates, acting under, and in the name of, 
the Supreme Ruter, professedly acknowledging his 
authority, and bound by the Constitution and the Laws 
which he had established. 

The Civil or Municipal Law of Israel embraced Two 
Classes of Statutes: Local Statutes, and General 
Statutes. 

First. Loca STATUTES. 

The Local Statutes of Israel were all of a positive 
nature, were adapted to their peculiar circumstances as 
a nation, and grew, extensively, out of the great pur- 
pose or design of God, which ¢hey were appointed to 
accomplish. From the Exodus to the Commencement 
of the Christian Dispensation, nearly fifteen handred 
years, they were the chosen People of God, set apart 
to preserve the worship of Jehovah on the Earth, and 
to prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah the 
Saviour of the world, and for the calling or gathering 
to that worship of all the other Nations of the Earth. 
The Messiah was to come not only out of Israel, but 


. THE LAW OF INCEST. 141 


MA 


out of the family or tribe of Judah. It was necessary, 
therefore, that the T'welve Tribes should be kept dis- 
tinct, until the coming of the Messiah ; and in accord- 
ance with this design many statutes or ordinances of a 
strictly positive, local and temporary, character. were 
established, to secure its accomplishment. - I will men- 
tion some of them : 

The Territory of each tribe was fixed by exact geo- 
graphical boundaries, which the other tribes could, un- 
der no circumstances, transgress; 

The Families or Clans of each tribe had their assigned 
estates in land, within that Territory. 

Marriages could be contracted only in the tribe of the 
party contracting. 

Estates could not descend to any one out of the tribe 
of the intestate. 

The Genealogies of the various tribes, and of the 
various families in each tribe, were to be kept distinct in 
public records, each in an appointed place. 

Estates, that were sold, or mortgaged for their full 
value, reverted to the owner or his family, on the return 
of the year of Jubilee, or of every fiftieth year. 

Many other statutes of a local nature, not immedi- 
ately and obviouly connected with the accomplishment 
of this great design, grew out of the peculiar circum- 
stances and relations of the Israelites as a people. Among 
these may be mentioned the following : 

The statutes establishing the various courts, and the 
various executive and judicial officers. 

The statutes relating to leprosy, to jealousy, to the 
cities of refuge, to the interest of money loaned to an 
Israelite, to the order of the tribes in war, and to the 
division of the spoils. 

The statute authorizing the enslaving of captives in 


4 


142.°. THE LAW OF INCEST. 


war, by way of retaliation on the surrounding nations, 
who enslaved the captive Israelites. And the statute 
requiring the manumission of Hebrew slaves in the 
seventh year. 

It is fully admitted that these statutes, and others 
like them, are not obligatory on us. They had their 
origin, either in the designation of Israel as the peculiar 
people of God, from whom the Messiah was to spring, 
or in their peculiar circumstances and relations as a 
people ; and, as such, were obviously positive, local and 
temporary, in their character—obligatory, not in the 
nature of things, but from positive enactment merely— 
obligatory only on Israel, while the statute was in force 
—and in force on them, only till the close of the Leviti- 
cal Dispensation. 

Secondly. GENERAL STATUTES. 

The General Statutes of the Levitical Code* are 
those, which did not grow out of the peculiar circum- 
stances and relations of the Israelites as a people, but 
out of the great and eternal principles of righteousness. 
They are founded on the Duologue and the Decalogue, 
and are mere illustrations or enforcements of their pre- 
cepts. ‘They are in the strict sense Moral Statutes, 
enjoining the duties, and prohibiting the breaches, of the 
Moral Law. Thus, these Statutes, equally with the 
Moral Law, forbid the worship of false gods, idolatry, 
and profanity ; enjoin the worship of the Sabbath and 
obedience to parents and magistrates; and forbid mur- 
der, adultery, theft, perjury and coveting; and this as 
fully, and in as direct and as general terms, as the 
Moral Law. 'They do more. They resolve these 
General duties and crimes into many Subordinate ones, 


* For the sake of brevity I use this phrase for the Civil Law of 
Israel. 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 143 


explain the nature of both, and show the Obligations of 
the former, and the Guilt of the latter. This may be — 
illustrated by several examples. The Third command 
of the Decalogue forbids Profaneness. 'The Levitical 
Code* does the same. It likewise forbids all Irreverence 
towards the name of God, his works, his word and his 
ordinances. ‘The Fourth Command enjoins the sanc- 
tification of the Sabbath. The Levitical Code also 
points out the things from which we are to abstain on 
the Sabbath, and those which we are to perform. The 
Fifth command enjoins the first General Relative duty 
in the order of nature, that of children to their parents. 
The Levitical Code also enjoins the subordinate duties 
of reverence, obedience, and support; the duties of Pa- 
rents towards children, involving maintenance, instruc- 
tion, government and a settlement in life; and the mu- 
tual duties of Masters and Servants, of Rulers and Sub- 
jects, of the Rich and the Poor, of the. Aged and the 
Young. The Sixth Command forbids Killing. The 
Levitical Code explains it by forbidding murder, man- 
slaughter, suicide, drunkenness, maiming, wounding, 
fighting and assaulting. The Seventh Command for- 
bids Adultery. 'The Levitical Code explains it by for- 
bidding Adultery in the strict sense, sodomy, bestiality, 
incest in many forms, rape, uncleanness, fornication and 
every other species of impurity. The same is true of 
the rest. Thus the Levitical Code, in its General sta- 
tutes, is to the Decalogue, what that is to the still more 
concise summary of duty in the Duologue. 'The De- 
calogue is a mere enlargement of the Duologue, a brief 
commentary, made by God himself, on its provisions, 


*T here speak of the Levitical Code in its broad sense, as it is found 
in the Old Testament at large; which is throughout a Code of Laws. 


v 


144 : THE LAW OF INCEST. 
* : 


explaining, in very general terms, what it enjoins, and’ 
what it forbids: the first four of its precepts showing us 
what is involved in Supreme love to G'od; and the 
last six, what is implied in the Love which is due to 
ourselves and to our neighbour. In the same manner, 
the Levitical Code, in its General statutes, is a fuller 
enlargement of the summary of duty im the Decalogue, 
a more extended commentary, made by God himself, 
on its provisions, explaining minutely what it enjoins, 
and what it forbids. 

To return then to the Objection. It is said that this 
Code is not binding on us, because the Civil or Muni- 
cipal Law of one nation is not binding on another. 
We cheerfully admit that the Civil or Municipal Law of 
one nation, as such, is not binding on another; and 
that, if the Levitical Code, as to its General statutes, 
stands on the same footing, with the Municipal Law of 
any other nation,—for example, with the Municipal 
Law of England,—it is not binding on us. But what 
is the fact? The Municipal Law of England was 
enacted by the King and Parliament of England. 
When it enjoins any conduct as a moral duty, or forbids 
any conduct as a crime against morality ;—as it does 
very extensively ;—it expresses the opinion merely of 
the King and Parliament of England on ihat point. 
That opinion, within the realm, has the binding force 
of a esa use, there, the King and Parliament 
have not only the right to express such opinion, but the 
power to arm it with adequate sanctions. But, without 
the realm, if is mere advice, because, there, the King 
and Parliament have no power thus to arm it; and, 
being weak, fallible men, their decision has no authority 
over the conscience. ‘The Levitical Code, on the con- 
trary, was enacted by God. When it enjoins any con- 


“ ™~ 
5 Sigs 
; % a 
% = My 


THE LAW OF INCEST. ™, 145 


“duct as a moral duty, or forbids any conduct as ‘an of- 
fence against morality, it expresses the will, the auiho-— 
ritative sentence of Gov himself, on that point. And 
although this will or sentence is expressed in the form 
of a law, within the realm of Israel; yet as God has 
power to arm it with the requisite sanctions of a law, as 
fully without as within that realm; and as his will or 
sentence is always infallibly true, just and right; wher- 
ever his will or sentence enjoins moral duties or forbids 
moral offences, applicable not to Israel merely, but to 
Man as such, and as truly to all other men as to the 
Israelites ; then i¢ ts not mere advice without that 
realm, but has the full force of @ law, and absolutely 
binds the conscience. The fact, therefore, that the Law 
of incest is a part of the Levitical Code, is no objection 
to its binding force. 

But it is said, that the Decree of the Council of the 
Apostles at Jerusalem settles this question; that the 
point, solemnly submitted to their decision was, whether 
it was needful to circumcise the Gentile Converts, 
and to keep the Law of Moses ; that they decided that 
it was not needful to keep that Law, except to abstain 
Jrom meats offered to idols, from blood, from things 
strangled, and from fornication ; that fornication 
does not include incest; and that therefore the Law of 
incest is not now in force.—In addition toghe proof al- 
ready furnished that by the Law of Moses is here in- 
tended the Ceremonial Law, I will suggest the follow- 
ing considerations : 

The word fornication, at present, usually denotes in 
English, serwal intercourse between unmarried per- 
sons; though it seems, at the era of the English ver- 
sion of the Bible, to have been equivalent to inconti- 


nence or lewdness ; and even now can scarcely be said 
13 


¥ 


146 - THE LAW OF INCEST. 


to have wholly dropped this meaning. But sepysia, in 
Greek, here rendered “ fornication,” is general, denoting 
all kinds of unlawful sexual intercourse, and is truly 
rendered by incontinence. Out of 31 instances, in 
which it occurs in the Greek Testament, it denotes for- 
nication in 7, incest in 2, and incontinence in 22.* In 
the Law of Divorce this mistranslation is obvious: “ He, 
who putteth away his wife, except for the cause of for- 
nication, and marrieth another, committeth adultery.” 
This version, according to the present meaning of that 
word, allows a divorce for fornication committed before 
marriage ; but prohibits it for adultery committed 
after marriage. The true rendering is incontinence ; 
and the law directly authorizes Divorces for incon 
nence, either before or after marriage.t 

- We turn the argument, therefore, in our own favour ; 
and say that wrepvei«, the term used by the Council of 
the Apostles, does include inces/, and all other unlaw- 
Sul sexual intercourse ; and of course that the Decision 
of the Council is a direct and solemn recognition of the 
binding force of the Law of Incest ; and of all the Levi- 


* 


* Ifthe reader wishes any farther evidence, that wopye‘a means 
unlawful intercourse in general, he is referred to all the Lexicons. I will 
quote only from Schleusner: “*epve/~ has a most extensive mean- 
ing, and signifies not only fornication, debauchery, and prostitution of 
the body for the sake of gain or lust, but uncleanness of every kind, as 
incest, adultery,” &c. 

{ So palpable is the error of the translation in this case, if we give 
the word its modern meaning, that the mere English reader, probably 
in every instance, supposes the word, in this passage, to mean adultery 
after marriage. It certainly includes that; but it also includes incon- 
tinence before marriage. The Levitical Law was strict on this point ; 
(Deut. xxii. 14, and xxiv. 1,) and the Law of Christ, in the very term 
made use of, has respect to it. 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 147 


tical laws relating to the same general subject, under the 
Christian Dispensation.* 

Again. Were this argument valid, it would prove 
that the solemn decree of the Apostolic Council, begin- 
ning with “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to 
us,” decides, that while the Gentiles are bownd to ab- 
stain from meats offered to idols, from things strangled, 
from blood, and from fornication, they are not bound to 
abstain from sodomy and bestiality as well as incest. 

IIL. If the Law of Incest is binding, it does not there- 
fore follow that its Penalty is binding. 

A Law consists of a Precept and a Penalty. The 
precept enjoins or forbids some act: the penalty shows 
the consequences of disobedience. If the law be of a 
moral nature, the precept enjoins some moral duty, or 
forbids some sin. ‘The Precept of every moral law in- 
volves two things: a Declaration of the lawgiver that 
the enjoined act is a duty, or the prohibited act a sin ; 
and a Command to do or refrain from it. Thus the 
precept of the law, “Ifa man lieth with his neighbour’s 
wife, he shall surely be put to death,” involves a Decla- 
ration on the part of God, that adultery is asin; anda 
Command of God forbidding it. So the precept of the 
law, “Ifa man lieth with his mother, he shall surely 
be put to death,” involves a Declaration of God, that in- 
cest with a mother is a sin; and a Command of God 
forbidding it. This declaration and this command are 
absolute, and are wholly distinct from the penalty, and 
unconnected with it. If, as in these two cases, the sin 
does not grow out of any peculiar circumstances of the 
Israelites, but out of the circumstances of all mankind, 


* Toavoid repetition under a following head, we are obliged to pre+ 
sent this direct argument in this place, 


148 ESSAY ON POLYGAMY. 


and out of the nature of marriage and sexual inter- 
course generally, then the declaration and the command 
apply to all men, and are absolutely universal; and these 
two laws involve declarations of God that adultery, 
and incest with a mother are universally, sins, by whom- 
soever committed, and commands of God forbidding 
all men to commit them. The same is equally true of 
all the other laws forbidding incest, as well as of those 
forbidding fornication, rape, and all other unlawful inter- 
course. 

Not so, with the Penalty. The Penalty of a law 
may be varied, and that endlessly, and yet the Declara- 
tion and the Command, involving the principle of the 
law, not be changed. When God has once declared 
these various kinds of intercourse to be sins, the princi- 
ple of these laws can never change, until God repeals the 
preceptive part of the laws, and authorizes that, which, 
as his law now stands, he declares to be unlawful inter- 
course. But in fixing the Penalty of these laws in the 
Levitical Code, he merely declared, in each case, his own 
views of the degree of the sin, and the fact, that the 
penalty actually annexed, was, in the then existing cir- 
cumstances of Israel, the proper one for that people, to 
continue as the penalty of the given law among them, 
until he should change it. But he made no declaration 
that it was the proper penalty for these crimes, in other 
nations in different circumstances. By affixing the pen- 
alty of death, he showed the sins to be very heinous, 
and the Israelites from the example of the surrounding 
nations to be in great danger of committing them. The 
penalty, therefore, has nothing to do with the declara- 
tion, or the command—i. e. with the preceni or princi- 
ple of these laws. If God, in the time of David, had 
changed the Penalty of these laws from death ta iz- 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 149 


prisonment for ten years, and in the time of Hezekiah 
to a fine of five talents of silver ; these changes of the 
Penalty would not, in the slightest degree have affected 
or altered the Precept of the law. It would under each 
change, have contained a declaration on the part of 
God that the act was a sin; and a command of God 
not to commit it. The supposed change in the penalty 
would have been a mere declaration, on the part of God, 
that, at the time when it was made, a milder punish- 
ment was sufficient to prevent trurisgression. 

If any proof were wanting of the soundness of the 
position here contended for, it might be derived from a 
comparison of any of the Laws of the Levitical Code 
with those of the Decalogue. Both codes forbid mur- 
der, adultery and stealing. The former Code annexes 
the penalty of death to murder and adultery, and that of 
fourfold restitution to stealmg. The latter annexes no 
penalty. And yet each law in the two Codes contains 
identically the same declarations of God, that the 
respective acts are sins, and identically the same com- 
mands of God not to commit them. 

It is not true, therefore, that, if the Law of Incest is 
binding, its Penalty is also binding. All, that we learn 
from the penalties of the Levitical law annexed to 
various crimes, is, ‘hat, if they cannot be prevented with- 
out a penalty equally severe, we have the sanction of 
God for annexing it. I need not add that, if this ob- 
jection had any weight, it would lie with equal force 
against the laws forbidding rape, sodomy and bestiality, 
as against the Law of Incest. 


Havine thus ascertained, negatively, that the Law of 
incest is not a part of the Ceremonial Law ; that it is 


not one of the Local statutes of the Levitical Code; that 
13* 


150 THE LAW OF INCEST: 


the fact of its being one of the General statutes of that 
Code is no evidence that it is not still in force; that the 
Council of the Apostles did not abrogate its obligation 
on the Gentiles ; and that, if the Law of incest itself is 
in force, still its penalty is not therefore binding; we ~ 
proceed with the direct argument : 

IU. Tue Law oF INCEST IS JUST AS BINDING ON 
THE GENTILES, AS Iv WAS ON IsRAEL. 

proof of this we observe, 

. The Levitical Code, as to its General Statutes, is 
binding on the Gentiles. 

In this respect, the Levitical Code, as to its General 
Statutes, stands on the same high ground, with the 
Duologue, and with the Decalogue. 'These two laws 
are an expression of the will of God, made to the realm 
of Israel. Since their first. promulgation, they have 
never been promulgated anew, in the form of laws. 
Christ, when consulted by two Israelites still under the 
law, as to their own duty, did indeed acknowledge the 
binding force of the first of these laws and of the sec- 
ond table of the second ; but he did it incidentally, in pri- 
vate conversations. casually occurring, and without any 
repromulgation of either; and, in doing so, he refers 
to their original solemn promulgation by God as evi- 
dence of their binding force. 

Why, then, are these laws binding on all other na- 
tions? Plainly for the following reasons :—'They are 
an. expression of the will of God, in the: form, and ac- 
companied with the sanctions, of a Law, enjoining spe- 
cific moral duties, and forbidding specific crimes against 
morality; ‘Though communicated originally to Israel, 
they did not grow out of the peculiar circumstances or 
relations of Israel, as.a people, but out of the relations, 
which they sustained as Men, and as Subjects of the 


a 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 151 


Divine government: 'The Duties, which they enjoin, 
are when performed, as excellent, and the Crimes, which 
they forbid, are when perpetrated, as odious, in the case 
of a Gentile, as of an Israelite: The laws themselves 
are, in every respect, as much adapted to the circum- 
stances and relations of the one, as to those of the other : 
and the Reasons given for the laws are alike, and equally, 
applicable to both: For example, it was no more ex- 
cellent, in an Israelite, to love the Lord his God with 
all the heart, or his neighbour as himself, or to keep the 
Sabbath, or to honour his parents; and no more odious 
in him, to worship false gods, or to bow down to idols, or 
to kill, or commit adultery, or steal, or bear false witness, 
or covet what was his neighbour’s, than it is in a Gen- 
tile: Hence we conclude that the Duologue and the 
Decalogue, as an expression of the will of God, are as 
obligatory on other nations, as they were on Israel. 

But, in all these respects, the Levitical Code, as to al- 
most all, if not all, its General Statutes, goes on ail 
fours with these two laws. I say almost all, because 
it is barely possible that there may be a few statutes of 
a moral nature, qualifying more general laws, which 
were adapted only to the peculiar circumstances and re- 
lations of the Israelites. If there were any such, that 
very fact shows that they were binding only on them ; 
and they are to be regarded as excepted from any re- 
marks, which may be made respecting the General 
Statutes of the Code.—Like those two laws, the Leviti- 
cal Code, as to its General Statutes, was an expression of 
the will of God, made to Israel. Since its first promul- 
gation, like them, it has never been promulgated anew 
in the form of a law. As Christ acknowledged the 
binding force of the Duologue, and of the second table 
of the Decalogue, but not that of the first table; so 


i 


152 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


Christ, and Paul and James acknowledge the binding 
force of several of the statutes of the Levitical Code, 
under the Christian Dispensation.*— 


Why, then, is the Levitical Code binding on all 
other nations 2? Plainly for the following reasons: It 


* In the fifth of Matthew, Christ, after declaring, “‘ Think not that I 
am come to destroy the Law ; For till heaven and earth pass, one jot 
or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled,” explains 
what he means by the Law, by quoting two commands from the Deca- 
logue; and three commands from the Levitical Code: acknowledging 
both, as the Law, of which he spake. The Law respecting Divorce in 
the Levitical Code, was, as we have seen, an alteration of the Original 
Law of marriage. To save the wife from exposure to cruelty, in that 
early and semi-barbarous state of society, Moses had given the hus- 
band, in certain cases, the right of divorcing the wife. Christ, ac- 
knowledging the Mosaic Law to be in full force, repealed a part of this 
statute of Moses, and took away the right of divorce, except in case 
of incontinence. He thus admitted that, if he had not repealed a part 
of the Levitical law of divorce, it would have been binding. Another 
statute, relating to vows, he comments on, by discountenancing vows 
in all cases as a practice not adapted to the new dispensation. A third, 
relating to retaliation, founded on the principles of strict justice, he re- 
peals, for the same reason, and enacts another, more conformed to the 
principles of benevolence. Paul alludes to the law respecting Sodomy, 
in Levit. xviii. 22, and Lev. xx. 13, as obligatory under the Christian 
dispensation, as well as to the law, in Deut. xxv. 4, which forbids us 
to) muzzle the ox, that treadeth out the corn. James refers to the sta- 
tute, in Levit. xix. 13, respecting keeping back the wages of hired 
labourers ; and to that, in Levit. xix. 15, which forbids respect to per- 
sons in judgment ; as both in full and binding force. Jude (verses 7, 8) 
refers to the general law against lewdness or uncleanness,—and particu- 
larly to the Section forbidding one of the two grossest crimes against, 
purity,—as now obligatory. These are some of the instances, in which 
the New Testament treats the General Statutes of the Levitical Code, 
as in full operation. Indeed, the attentive reader of the New Testa- 
ment will find it written throughout on the supposition, that every part 
of the Levitical Law, as to its General or Moral precepts, as well as 
the Old ‘Testament generally, is absolutely obligatory upon mankind ; 
and on no other supposition, are the Scriptures a complete and per- 
fect rule of faith and practice. 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 153 


is an expression of the will of God, in the form, and ac- 
companied with the sanctions, of a law, enjoining spe- 
cific moral duties, and forbidding specific crimes against 
morality : Though communicated originally to Israel, 
it did not grow out of the peculiar circumstances or re- 
lations of Israel as a people; but out of the relations, 
which they sustained as Men ; and as Subjects of the 
Divine government: The Duties, which it enjoins, are, 
when performed, as excellent, and the Crimes, which it 
forbids, are, when perpetrated, as odious, in the case of 
a Gentile, as of an Israelite: The Law itself is, in every 
respect, as much adapted to the circumstances and rela- 
tions of the one as to those of the other: and the Rea- 
sons given for the Law are alike, and equally, applicable 
to both: For example, it was no more excellent, i an 
Israelite, to reverence, obey, and support, his parents, 
or to maintain, instruct, govern and settle, his children, 
or to perform faithfully the duties of a master, or a ser- 
vant, of a ruler or a subject; and no more odious in him 
to exhibit irreverence towards the name, the works, the 
word and ordinances, of God; or to be guilty of murder, 
manslaughter, suicide, drunkenness, maiming, wound- 
ing, fighting and assaulting ; or to be guilty of adultery, 
sodomy, bestiality, incest in any of its forms, rape, un- 
cleanness, fornication, and any other species of impurity ; 
than it is in a Gentile : Hence, with regard to the Le- 
vitical Code, as to the Precepts of its General Statutes, 
as fully, and, for the very same reasons, as with regard 
to those of the Duologue and to those of the Decalogue, 
we conclude, that that Code, as an expression of the 
Will of God, is as obligatory on other nations as it was 
on Israel. 

If. The Law of Incest is strictly Moral in its nature. 

If this position can now need proof, the proof is easily 
furnished. 


154 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


The design of the law is wholly, and in the highest 
sense, Moral. The design of the Law of incest will be 
elearly seen, by comparing it with the other laws regu- 
lating Sexual Intercourse. That the Design of the Law 
of Marriage—one man with one woman—was moral, 
will probably be admitted. But if not, God expressly 
declares it: “And wherefore did he make one? 'That 
he might seek a godly seed :”’—-In other words, that he 
might secure and promote godliness or piety ; and 
prevent the universal and hopeless immorality, which 
grows out of polygamy and promiscuous concubinage. 
The design of the law forbidding fornication was to 
prevent immoral intercourse in the unmarried ; of 
that forbidding adultery, to prevent immoral inter- 
coures in the married ; of that forbidding rape, to pre- 
vent immoral intercourse accompanied with violence ; 
of that of two other laws, to prevent immoral inter- 
course of the grossest kinds ; and the design of the 
Law of incest, to prevent immoral intercourse in fa- 
milies. If any law, then, can be regarded as a Moral 
Law, the Law of incest is of this character. 

III. The Law of Incest is just as applicable, and just as 
necessary, to the Gentiles, as to Israel, and is therefore 
binding on the former as truly as on the latter. As Incest 
was in itself, no more odious, in an Israelite, than it is in 
a Gentile, so the reasons, assigned for its prohibitition, 
were no more powerful, and extended no farther, in the 
case of the former, than in the case of the latter. The 
reasons assigned for the Law of Incest are Propin- 
quily, and the preservation of Purity in families ; 
and these reasons are identically the same in both cases. 
For example: An Israelite was just as near, by con- 
sanguinity, to his grandmother, and his mother, to his 
daughter and his granddaughter, to his sister, to his 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 155 


aunt, and his niece; and just as near, by affinity, to his 
grandfather's wife, and his wife’s grandmother, to his 
father’s wife, and his wife’s mother, to his son’s wife, 
and his wife’s daughter, to his grandson’s wife, and his 
wife’s granddaughter, to his brother’s wife, and his 
wife’s sister, to his uncle’s wife and his wife’s aunt, to his 
nephew’s wife and his wife’s niece; as a Gentile is: and 
it was no more necessary or desirable to preserve, and there 
was no more reason to fear the loss of, purity, in the family 
of the one, than in that of the other. And still more 
particularly ; Because, in cases, where marriage ceases 
to be incestuous, wnlawful commerce ceases to be in- 
cestuous, also; and because a brother’s widow, a wife’s 
sister, a nephew’s widow, and a wife’s niece, come 
into the family on the footing of sisters and nieces by 
blood ; there is, and unhappily there is found to be, as 
stern, and unbending, and pervading a necessity, in 
Gentile lands, to guard the purity of these connections, 
by all the sanctions of a law of incest, as there was, or 
could have been, in the land of Israel. Hence, as God 
declared that the propinquity, between an Israelite and 
his sister or niece, was so great, as to render their inter- 
marriage incestuous, and as their propinquity was 
mathematically the same as that between a Gentile 
and his sister, or niece ; I therefore conclude unhesi- 
tatingly and with mathematical certainty, that their 
propinquity is so great, as to render their intermarriage 
incestuous. Hence, also, as God declared that the pro- 
pinquity between an Israelite and his brother’s widow, 
or his wifes sister, or his nephew's widow, or his 
wife's niece was so great, as to render their intermarriage 
incestuous ; and as their propinquity was mathematically 
the same, as that between a Gentile and his correspond- 
ing connections ; I therefore conclude, unhesitatingly 


156 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


and with mathematical certainty, that their propinquity 
is so great, as to render their marriage incestuous. 

The law of incest, therefore, contains the solemn 
Declaratlon of God, when acting as a Legislator o 
the given subject,—a declaration to Man as such, 
not limited, but absolutely universal in its nature, and 
reason, and rule, and application.—that the degree of 
propinguity between a man and a woman, in each one 
of the cases specified in the Law of incest, and in one 
just as truly as in another, is so great, as to render mar- 
riage between them incestuous; and a solemn Com- 
mand from God to Man not to contract marriage 
within any of those degrees. It has, therefore, all the 
binding force, which can be given to a Law, by the au- 
thority of God; and is always and absolutely obligatory 
on every child of Adam. 

IV. Incest was recognized as a crime, before the Le- 
vitical Law of Incest was published. 

As committed by the Canaanites, before the promul- 
gation of that law, it is declared by God to have been 
“an abomination,” “an iniquity,” “an abominable cus- 
tom,” and “asin that defiled the land.” This is said 
of every one of the prohibited degrees, and of one as 
truly as of another. In the very forcible. language of 
Moses, referring to Incest and eight other crimes, and 
to all indiscriminately and alike, it is thus characterized: 
In all these, the nations are defiled, which I cast out 
before you; and the land is defiled: therefore, do I 
visit the iniquity of the land upon it; and the land itself 
vomiteth out her inhabitants: for they committed all 
these things ; and therefore I abhorred them.” 

‘he extermination, spoken of in this passage, was 
obviously a judicial punishment. Punishment is the 
manifestation of the displeasure of a ruler for diso- 


THE LAW OF INCEST. - 157 


bedience to a law. A law cannot be disobeyed before 
it exists. A law, prohibiting incest and the other eight 
crimes, a law, too, binding the Canaanites.and the other 
nations, existed, therefore, before the Levitical Law of: 
incest was given. ~A law, also, cannot bind, wnless it 
be known ; for if it be unknown to an individual, to 
him it does not exist. Unless, therefore, we are ready 
to charge on the Lawatver or Isrart the gross in+ 
justice of inflicting condign punishment, for disobedience 
to an ex post facto law,—conduct which has been the 
peculiar infamy of Nero and Caligula—some General 
Law, prohibiting Incest and the other eight crimes, not 
only existed, but was known to the Canaanites and the 
other nations, by tradiiion, or otherwise, before the 
promulgation of the Levitical Code. Laws prohibiting 
Incest, and the other eight crimes, were therefore pro- 
mulgated to mankind, at a very early period of the his- 
tory of the world. 

We cheerfully admit that we cannot specify the time 
of their enactment, or the manner and circumstances of 
their promulgation.. But the reason is obvious. 'The 
history of mankind before the Deluge, and after the De- 
luge until the Exodus of Israel from Egypt, or wpwards 
of twenty-five hundred years, is exceedingly brief, and 
is made up almost exclusively of narrative. 'The only 
laws given to Adam, which are even remotely alluded to 
by Moses, are the Law of the Sabbath, the Law of Sa- 
crifices, the Law of Marriage, the Law directing him to 
live on the Fruits of the Earth, and the Law forbidding 
Murder. ‘The only laws given to Noah and his de- 
scendents, to which Moses either directly or indirectly 
alludes, are, the law requiring the murderer to be put to 
death, the Law authorizing Animal Food, and forbid- 
ding the eating of blood, the Law of clean and unclean 

14 


> 


158 THE LAW. OF INCEST. 


beasts in sacrifice, the Law of Faith, and the Law of 
Circumcision, (both given to Abraham) the Law forbid- 
ding Sodomy, and perhaps the Law of Family-worship. 
Yet how few of the duties which we owe to God or 
Man, or of the sins which we are liable to commit 
against either, are here included. Here for example we 
find but one law relating to injuries to the person, and 
not one relating to property, or to injuries to reputation. 
From the very nature of the case, therefore,—-as society 
could not commence without laws on these subjects, and 
as the early society of the world was not savage, but 
wholly civilized,—we know that laws necessary to the 
welfare of society were originally given by God to 
Man. The same is true of all the laws forbidding sex- 
ual impurity. The 18th and 20th chapters of Leviticus, 
in recording the fact, that the nations of Canaan were 
exterminated for the nine crimes therein mentioned— 
and among them for adultery, incest, sodomy, bestial- 
ity, polygamy and uncleanness,—have furnished higher 
evidence, that laws prohibiting those crimes were early 
given to Man, than Moses has furnished us of the early 
promulgation even of any of the general laws recited 
above, except three given to Adam, relating to marriage, 
to vegetable food, and to murder; and three given to 
Noah, relating to murder, to animal food, and. to the 
eating of blood. We have therefore the highest war- 
rant for asserting, that laws forbidding Sexual Impu- 
rity, and among them a Law forbidding Incestuous 
Marriages, were very early promulgated to Mankind ; 
and that for known disobedience to these laws, and to 
the other three referred to in these two chapters, the na- 
tions of Canaan were exterminated. ‘ 

V. Incest is directly recognized as unlawful in the 
New ‘Testament. 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 159 


1. John the Baptist’s declaration to Herod proves. it 
to be unlawful. Herod and Philip were brothers. He- 
rodias had been married io Philip, and had afterwards 
been divorced. We are told, .that, when Herod had 
married Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, John told 
him, “It is not lawful for thee to have her.”—It would 
have been lawful, if Herod had not been Philip’s bro- 
ther. It was the Incest therefore, that rendered the 
marriage unlawful.— Herod, we admit, was a Jew. 

2. Paul’s treatment of the incestuous person at 
Corinth proves, that Incest is now unlawful. The 
incestuous person had married his step-mother.* Paul 
speaks of this connection with the utmost abhorrence, 


* It has.been supposed, I know, that the son was not married to the 
step-mother. Paul thought otherwise. His language is “ that one 
should have his father’s wife,” or “stepmother.” The phrase to have 
a woman, denotes, in the Scriptures, to have heras a wife. Thus Mark 
6. 8, and Matth. 14.5, “Itis not lawful for thee to have thy brother _ 
Philip’s wife ;” Matt. 22. 28. ‘“‘ Whose wife shall she be of the seven, for 
they all had her ;” John 3. 29. “He that hath the bride is the bride- 
groom;” 1 Cor. 7. 10, 12, 29, “If any brother hath a wife that believ- 
eth not”—“ Let every man have his own wife; and let every woman 
have her own husband”—“ They that have wives, as though they had 
none.” The only seeming deviation from this rule is found in John 14. 
18. ‘The Samaritan woman had had five husbands, and professedly 
had and was believed by her neighbours to have the sixth. Christ 
made to her the startling and overwhelming disclosure, ‘He whom 
thou now hast--i. e. as a husband--is not thy husband:” In other 
words, “ He, whom thou now professest to have as a husband, is not thy 
husband.” Probably the idea, that the son had not married the step- 
“mother, arose from the use of the word fornication in our version. The 
reader will recollect that this word is general, and denotes adultery and 
incest as well as every species of unlawful sexual intercourse. If the 
father, as those whom we oppose insist, was living, epve/a cannot de- 
note, fornication in the modern sense. If the son was not married, on 
the ground which they take, it denotes adultery. If, as is clear, he was 
married, still the marriage was utterly void; and, on the ground which 
we take, it denotes incestuous adultery, 


160 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


asa crime “not so much as named among the Gen- 
tiles,” and directs the Corinthian Church to excommu- 
nicate “that wicked person.” 'The-reader, in order to 
feel the full force of Paul’s language, should read the 
last 15 verses of the lst Chap. to the Romans. He will 
there find Paul’s actual opinion of the Gentile world, 
“oraven, as with the pen of iron and the point of a 
diamond.” After the perusal, he will be prepared to 
realize in some measure, what must be that crime, and 
particularly what must be that species of impurity, in 
the view of Paul, which, to use his own language, is 
“such impurity, as is not so much as named among 
the Gentiles.” But, according to those whom I oppose, 
if the father had been dead, as no marriage is now in- 
cestuous, the son would have been guilty of xo crime at 
all; and, if the father was living, as- no intercourse is 
now incestuous, he was guilty merely of adultery, in 
marrying another man’s wife. But what says Paul? 
The identical crime which he charges upon him is not 
the crime of adultery, but the crime of marrying his 
JSather’s wife : a connection, which, he says, “is not so 
much as named among the Gentiles.” If Paul had 
not considered it a greater crime, in the son, to marry 
his father’s wife, than the wife of another man, he 
could not have laid the whole stress of the charge upon 
the fact, that he had married his father’s wife. If he 
had considered the incontinence of the son as amounting 
to nothing more than adzlterz, he could not have said 
with the least shadow of truth, that it was a crime “ not 
so much as named among the Gentiles.” The man, 
who wrote the first chapter of Romans, knew the Gen- 
tiles too well, and was too honest a man, to make such 
an assertion. Had it been true, that adultery was a 
crime “not so much as named among the Gentiles,” 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 161 


the Heathen Gentiles of that age would have wonder- 
fully surpassed, in purity, not only the Jews, but the 
Christian Gentiles of that and of every following age. 
It was then the J/ncest, involved in the connection be- 
tween the son and the stepmother, which the Apostle 
thus deeply reprobated; and on which he laid the 
charge of this enormous guilt. Incest, then, was a 
crime, anda crime of singular enormity, in a Corinthian, 
under the Christian Dispensation. 

3. ‘The Decree, made by the Apostles in Council at 
Jerusalem, in the name of the Holy Ghost, contains, as 
we have seen on a previous page, their solemn decision, 
issued to the Churches, that the Law of Incest, as well 
as the whole Levitical law relating to impurity, is bind- 
ing in all its force under the Christian Dispensation. 

A. 'The account given by Paul of the abominations 
of the Gentiles, in Romans i., is a distinct recognition 
of both these laws as now obligatory.—Paul was a Jew, 
writing to many Christian Jews at Rome: and used 
language in a sense to which Jews were accustomed — 
The Levitical Law, and the Old and New Testaments 
generally, class adultery, incest, and the two grossest 
crimes against purity, as well as those of less turpitude, 
under the general term wncleanness.* 'The account 
given of the Gentiles, by Paul, in Romans i. is as fol- 
lows: “God gave them up to uncleanness, through the 
lusts of their own hearts.”—He exemplifies this general 
charge by a specification of one of the two grossest 
crimes against purity, included under the name unclean- 
ness, as shamelessly perpetrated by both males and fe- 
males. He then represents them as filled with all for- 


* This is familiarly the fact, in the writings of Paul. See particu- 
larly 2 Cor. xii, 21, Gal. v. 19, Eph. iv. 19, and vy, 3, and Col, iu, 5. 
14* 


162 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


nication (xopve'e)—all lewdness or impurity. ‘Thus, 
he not only represents them as guilty of all the various 
crimes against purity included under the terms, wnclean- 
ness and mopveiz, both of which include incest ; and spe- 
cifies the shameless practice of one of the two grossest 
crimes against purity, as proving the truth of the gene- 
ral charge; but pronounces all these offences, included 
under those terms, to be enormous sins, as committed by 
Gentiles. This he does after the Levitical Dispensa- 
tion was closed; and thus distinetly recognizes the 
whole Levitical law, forbidding cleanness or lewd- 
ness in all its forms,—and particularly the Law of In- 
cest—as absolutely obligatory as to its precepts under 
the Christian Dispensation. 

VL. Ifthe Law of Incest be not binding on the Gen- 
tiles, neither is any part of the Old Testament. The 
Old Testament was addressed to Israelites and not to 
Gentiles: why then is a great part of it binding on the 
latter? The only answer is, That it consists of Truths 
and Duties, which are in no sense more applicable to 
the former, than to the latter. For example: the pro- 
position, “The Lord reigneth ;” and the precept, “Fret 
not thyself because of evil doers;” were uttered in form 
to Israel. Why then do they affect ws? Because the 
truths contained in the proposition and the precept, and 
the duty growing out of the former, as well as that pre- 
scribed in the latter, were given by God, our Almighty 
Governor, are wholly of a general nature, are just as 
applicable to our case as to that of Israel, and are just as 
important and necessary to us as they were to them. 
All these, as we have seen, are equally true of the Law 
of Incest. As the same may be shown of every other 
truth and duty of the Old Testament; it follows that 
the truths and duties contained in the Law of Incest are 
just as binding on the Gentiles, as the rest of the Old 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 163 


Testament. The same might be shown, ‘also, as to 

many of the instructions of Christ in the Condes 
From these considerations it is clear, that the Law: of 

incest is as binding on the Gentiles, as it was on Israel. 


To this course of reasoning, and to the conclusion in 
which it results, the following pecans have been 
offered. 

1. It is alleged that Incest isa mere offence by pos- 
itive statute, and therefore cannot be malum in se, a 
crime in itself, or in the nature of things; but is 
merely malum prohibitum. 

In support of this position it is alleged, 1. That In- 
cest was no crime in Cain, Abel and Seth, and the 
other sons of Adam, who were under a moral necessity 
of marrying, and sabe se duty it was to marry, their sis- 
ters. 2. That it was made the duty of an Israelite, in 
certain circumstances, to marry his brother’s wife.—But 
it is said, that God cannot place his creatures under a 
moral necessity of committing, still less can he make it 
their duty to commit, a crime in its own nature, or 
malum in se. Hence it is concluded, that Incest is 
merely malum prohibitum. 

The application of the phrases malum prohibitum 
and malum in se, to human laws is intelligible ; but, 
when made to the laws of God, seems not to be logical 
or happy. To bury a'corpse in any thing but wool- 
len, is an offence forbidden by the laws of England, 
under a penalty of twenty pounds, and is an instance of 
malum prohibitum ; because it is not an offence by the 
laws of God. Murder, adultery, stealing and lying, 
whether forbidden. by human laws or not, are sins ; 
because they are forbidden by the laws of God, and are 
therefore mala in se. 


164 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


¥ 


The phrase, a crime in the nature of thing's, also 
needs explanation. Actions are right or wrong, in the 
original and highest sense, according to their tendency: 
to produce good or evil, happiness or misery ; and 
God, as he himself abundantly assures us, has respect 
to this tendency, in what he commands, and in what he 
forbids. In weighing the tendency, of moral actions, 
and thus deciding on their rectitude or obliquity, we of 
course take, and we are compelled to take, the nature of - 
things, as it actually exists, and as we actually find 
it. Whether it was originally possible forthe Almighty 
Creator to have given things in such a sense a different 
and opposite nature, and so to have constituted things, 
that those actions, whose natural and uniform tendency 
is now to produce Misery, should have heen reversed 
in their nature, and have had a natural and uniform ten- 
dency to produce Happiness; and that those actions, 
whose natural and uniform tendency is now to produce 
Happiness, should have been reversed in their nature, 
and have had a natural and uniform tendency to pro- 
duce Misery: For example, Whether it was originally 
possible so to have constituted things, that Enmity to 
God, leading to the worship of false gods and of idols; 
Trreverence, leading to profanity and blasphemy ; Im- 
piety, to the profanation of the sabbath ; Filial impiety, 
as resulting in disobedience to parents: Malice, as exhib- 
ited in violence and murder; Lust, in fornication, adul- 
tery, incest, rape, sodomy and bestiality ; Coveting, in 
theft, fraud and robbery; and the Spirit of Falsehood, 
in lying and perjury ; should have had a natural and 
uniform tendency to produce Happiness: and that Love 
to God, as shown in owning, reverencing and worship- 
ping, him; Filial piety; Benevolence; Purity ; Equity ; 
and the Spirit of truth ;—in their appropriate actings ;— 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 165 


| 


should have had a natural and uniform tendency to pro- 
duce Misery ;—And, to go-still further back, even to the 
remotest possible point in the metapbysics of Ethics, 
Whether, in a still higher sense, it was originally possi- 
ble for the Almighty Creator to have given things prame- 
vally, in such asense a different and opposite nature, 
and so to have constituted things, that that, which is now 
Happiness, should have been Misery, and that that, 
which is now Misery, should have been Happiness : 
—Are questions of “high priori” speculation, which do 
not fairly meet us, in a practical examination into the 
nature and causes of actually existing Laws. We know 
indeed, I admit, with absolute certainty, if we certainly 
know any thing; (and, with no impeachment of abso- 
lute Omnipotence, but, on the contrary, with the highest 
reverence, we may say that we certainly know;) that 
there are certain points in Physics which no exertion 
of Physical Omnipotence, no possible physical constitu- 
tion of things, could bring to pass:—for example, that 
two and two should equal five ; that whatever is, is 
not ; that a thing should be, and not be, at the same 
instant; and that the three angles of a triangle 
should be more or less than two right angles. And 
we know with equal certainty, that there are certain 
points 7” E’thics, which no exertion of Moral Omnipo- 
tence, no possible moral constitution of things, could 
bring to pass :—for example, that enmity to G'od, blas- 
phemous irreverence, impiety, malice, and wilful 
perjury, should be right, Yet, should there be any, 
whose optics are not sharp enough, or telescopic enough, 
to see the truth of this latter admission clearly, we will 
not stop, as it is a mere concession, as well as for other 
obvious reasons, to make it more clear. Even they 
however can see, and will admit, that, if the moral na- 


166 THE LAW OF-INCEST. 


ture of God be now right, until it works a total change in 
itself,—so that it becomes the very opposite of what it now 
is—and a similar change in the very nature and essence 
of all moral things ; no supposable law, emanating from 
God himself, could make these things right—Thus far 
we concede to the objector. 

But when we come to mere Eirternal Acts, taken 
separately from ¢he spirit. from which they flow, and 
not necessarily involving either moral rectitude or obli- 
quity in the agents, we can make no such concessions. 
We know of no such acts, which God may not, in the 
exercise of infinite wisdom and goodness, either permit 
or forbid, or which he may not permit at one time under 
one set of circumstances, and forbid at another. Should 
this be denied, the proof is at. hand;—If there be any 
mere Herternal Acts, in such a sense wrong, that God 
consistently with his own holiness cannot,under any 
circumstances, command them ; it will be agreed that 
Killing a prisoner of war, in cold blood; Exterminat- 
ing a whole nation; and Sacrificing one’s own child; 
are such acts.—Let us then look at facts. 

Agag, king of Amalek, surrendered himself as a pris- 
oner of warto Saul. Samuel the prophet, acting under 
the express direction of God, put him to death. 

The commission to exterminate the Canaanites ran 
thus: “ And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them 
before thee, thou shalt smite them, and shalt utterly de- 
stroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, 
nor show any mercy to them.”* | And again, “Of the 
cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give 
thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save nothing alive 
that breatheth, but thou shalt utterly destroy them.”t 
This was a command of God to exterminate men, 


* Deut. vii. 2. } Deut. xx. 16, 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 167 


women and children, to seize their country, and to take 
possession of their property; and it was executed by 
Joshua. 
God commanded Abraham to offer his son, his only 
son; Isaac, as a burnt-oflering, on Mount Moriah. Ina 
case of all cases the most agonizing, the Patiiarch, with 
views wholly different from those of the objector,— instead 
of stopping to ask, Whether the act were not of such a 
nature, that God, consistently with his own holiness, 
could not, under any circumstances, command it,—heard 
the command, bowed in submission to Him who gave it, 
and obeyed. Rising up early in the morning, he took his 
son, the heir of promise, and went to the place, of which 
God had toldhim. “And Abraham built an altar there, 
and Jaid the wood in order, and bound Isaac. his son, 
and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham 
stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his — 
son.” Just as the life of Isaac was on the wing, a Voice 
_ from heaven said unto him, “ Lay not thy hand upon 
the lad; neither do thou any thing unto him.” What 
was the nature of this conduct ?—“ Murder !” says the 
objector; “an Act, which God could not license, consist- 
ently with his holiness !’—What said the Voice from 
Heaven ?—“ Now I know, that thou fearest God ; seeing 
thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me.” 
Had these acts been done without a Divine command, 
the first would have been a treacherous assassination ; 
the second, a wanton butchery of men women and 
children ; and the third, a cold-blooded murder of an 
only son. Having been done with that command, they 
“met a high reward from the hands of God. God, how- 
ever, in commanding these acts, did not command them 
to be performed with malice or the spirit of murder, 
any more than be commands the exercise of that spirit 


168 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


in the execution of a murderer. Had he done so,——if 
we may be justified for one moment in making the hor- 
rible supposition,—-clouds and darkness, infinitely deeper 
and more awful than the blackness of darkness itself, 
would have quenched the glory of the Majesty on High! 

The ground therefore, taken by the objector, cannot 
be correct ; for it leads to consequences, at which he him- 
self will revolt. 


“ The Maker justly claims the world he made: 
In this, the right of Providence is laid.” 


Life is his gift; and he may take it back, at what 
time, in what place, under what circumstances, and by 
what means, instruments, or agents, he pleases. If the 
command to destroy it, in a given case, certainly pro- 
ceeds from him; what, in other circumstances, would 
be murder, becomes an imperious duty. While, 
therefore; as at present advised, we cannot admit, that 
even a command of God could justify aprety, or blus- 
phemy, or malice, or perjury ; we claim, with perfect 
consistency, and on grounds which cannot be shaken, 
that mere Heternal Acts are not in such a sense wrong, 
that God consistently with his holiness, cannot, under 
any circumstances, permit or command them. 

The subject of Marriage and that of Sexual Inter- 
course stand precisely upon this footing. From the very 
nature of the case, all commands relating to them must 
be in one sense of a positive nature. When God had 
created one man and one woman, “he had,’ says Ma- 
lachi “the residue of the spirit ;’—1i. e. he had the spirit 
of life remaining in himself, which he could have im- 
parted to any additional number of females, and then 
given them to Adam. When he had thus made them, 
instead of instituting Marriage—the wnion of one man 


THE LAW OF INCEST 169 
with one woman—he might have instituted Polygamy ; 
or he might have simply said to Adam and his sons, as 
he said to the inferior classes of animals, “ Increase, and 
multiply, and replenish the Earth,” and thus left them 
to a Promiscuous Iiitercourse. But he made one wo- 
man only, and then gave Adam and Eve the Original 
Law of Marriage, binding all their posterity. That 
Law was strictly positive in its nature, as resulting 
from a positive command. Still, in its design, in its 
binding force, and in the duties which it involves, as well 
as in the violations, to which it is liable, it is, as we have 
seen, in the highest sense moral. Yet, in revealing his 
will to Mankind, respecting one important division of 
the general subject of marriage, viz. Divorce, God, at 
three different periods of the history of Man, has 
given three wholly different Statutory provisions con- 
cerning it. The Original Law of Marriage did not 
allow of Divorces, in any case whatever ; and no pro- 
vision was made for its dissolution but by death; and 
that, had man been willing to do his duty, was indis- 
putably the only right law for the Human Race. This 
state of things continued upwards of twenty-five hun- 
dred years. 'The Levitical Code authorized the hus- 
band, “if his wife found no favour in his eyes, because 
he had found some uncleanness in her,” to give her “a 
bill of divorcement,” which wrought a dissolution of the 
marriage. This Code was given in a semi-savage state 
of society ; it was, as we have seen, to protect wives from 
the cruelty or “hard-heartedness” of alienated hus- 
bands, in such a state of society, that this legal provision 
for their relief was made. ‘This state of things contin- 
ued for nearly fifteen hundred years. Christ abro- 
gates a part of this provision of the Levitical Code, and 

15 


170 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


allows of divorce in a single case—that of incontinence: 
Hence, under the Christian dispensation, divorce for any 
cause except incontinence, followed by marriage with 
another, is adultery ; while, under the Levitical, it was 
lawful for various other causes; and yet under the Patri- 
archal, even the divorce for incontinence, as well as 
every other, if followed by marriage, was adultery. Yet 
these changes in the Law of marriage, or the Great 
Law regulating Sexual Intercourse, do not prove that 
that Law is not in thestrictest sense a Moral law. Nor 
would the objector hence argue that fornication, adul- 
tery, rape, sodomy and bestiality, were not mala in se, 
immoralities, crimes in their own nature, but merely 
mala prohibita, offences created by statute. 

This is equally true respecting the Law of incest. The 
facts that Cain, Abel and Seth, lawfully married their 
sisters, and that an Israelite, in certain circumstances, 
might lawfully marry his brother’s wife, fall just as far 
short of proving, that Incest is not malum in se, an 
immorality, a crime in its own nature. God has a right 
to give us what positive laws he pleases. When he has 
forbidden a given act, the wilful commission of that act 
is asin, and that in every case. When we know his 
positive commands, our business is not to ask, “ Why,” 
or “ Wherefore,” but simply to obey. And if we do 
otherwise, we must meet the consequences. 

Again. ‘This argument might have been urged by 
an Israelite under the Levitical Code, with just as much 
force, as now by the objector. Wishing to marry his 
niece or his sister, he might have said, ‘Incest is 
merely an offence by positive statute, and not a crime 
in itself, or in its own nature. Cain, Abel and Seth, 
and the other sons of Adam, married their sisters from 
the very necessity of the case. There is no sin, there- 


THE LAW ON INCEST. 171 


fore, in my marrying as I wish.’ When brought to 
his trial, for breaking the Law of Incest, what would 
Moses have said to him, in reply to such a plea? What 
Moses would have said to him, a greater LawGIveR 
than Moses will hereafter say to the man, who now 
breaks the Law of Incest. 


2. The Practice of incest, among the Patriarchs and 
Israelites, is alleged, against the binding force of the Law 
of incest. 

Without repeating the answers to the argument from 
Practice, in the Essay on Polygamy, and in a former 
part of this Essay, we will inquire into the actual Ex- 
tent of the practice. Abraham married his half-sister. 
Lot’s two daughters committed incestuous rape with 
their father, after they had made him drunk for the 
purpose. Jacob married two sisters, under circum- 
stances, which have.been considered at length. Thamar 
committed incestuous fornication with Judah, her 
father-in-law : he not knowing her to be his daughter- 
in-law. Reuben committed incestuous adultery, if so it 
may be called, with Bilhah, his father’s concubine. 
Amram married his father’s sister. Amnon commit- 
ted incestuous rape with his half-sister. Absalom com- 
mitted incestuous rape with ten of his father’s concu- 
bines, on the house-top, in the sight of all Israel. If we 
except the terrible denunciations against the inhabit- 
ants of Jerusalem, in F.zek. xxii., for the shameless com- 
mission of this crime, and the story of the destruction 
of the Canaanites already recited, and the case of the 
sons of Adam, which was lawful marriage, the above is, 
I believe, a full history of Incest in the Old 'Testament. 
We have here, then, three cases of incestuous marriage, 


172 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


thirteen instances of incestuous rape, one of incestuous 
fornication, and one of incestuous quasi-adultery. 

Probably no argument will be attempted, in favour 
of the lawfulness of Incest, either from the cases, or the 
characters, of Absalom, Amnon, Reuben, Thamar, or 
the two daughters of Lot. We know of Amram, only, 
that he married his aunt, and lived with his country- 
men in Egypt, under no regular government. The 
case of Jacob has been fully examined. 'To those, who 
rely on any, or on all, of these cases, for their justifica- 
tion, I have only one suggestion to make: In the day 
of trial, when asked by the Judge, “ Why did you com- 
mit Incest?” do you intend to answer, “ Because Jacob 
did it;” or “Because Amram did it;” or, “ Because 
the two daughters of Lot, and Thamar, and Reuben, 
and Amnon, and Absalom did it.” 

But the case of Abraham is worth tenfold more than 
all the rest. He was the father of the faithful, and 
the friend of God. Yet he married his half-sister.— 
To those spiritual descendents of Abraham, then, the 
Levites of the present day, who have married their 
wife's sisters ; and who, allegmg that Ais incest was 
a case of consanguinity, while theirs is a case of mere 
affinity, intend to give the venerable man a lower place 
on the scale of obedience, than they take themselves; 
we beg leave, before the arrangement is permanently 
fixed, to suggest the following considerations: Abra- 
ham, when he married Sarah, was a heathen, and an 
idolater, living in Mesopotamia, in the midst of heathens 
and idolaters; who, if we may judge from the conduct 
of their heathen and idolatrous neighbours, the Canaan- 
ites, were far from being over-scrupulous on the subject 
of marriage, and incest, and all the other varieties of 
sexual intercourse. They profess to be Christians, and 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 173 


live in a Christian community, the great body of whom, 
even now, notwithstanding the influence of Levitical 
example, still regard the marriage they have contracted 
as incestuous.—Sarah, at the time specified, if we may 
believe the testimony of one of her distinguished de- 
scendents—the apostle Paul-—“ was very fair ;” so fair, 
that, to this day, her singular beauty is celebrated in all 
the East; so fair, that, even when the spring-time of 
beauty was past, she arrested the practical attention of 
powerful monarchs. Their wife’s sisters—far be it 
from us to speak disparagingly of them, on a point of so 
much interest—are doubtless beautiful also; but, their 
husbands themselves being judges, can hardly challenge 
this high pre-eminence.— Abraham and Sarah lived 
together, before marriage, under one roof, and met 
daily. They and their wife's sisters usually enjoy 
the same dis-advantage. On the score of opportunity, 
therefore, without which, it is well known no marriage 
would take place, both parties are on a level.—Abra- 
ham was a young man ; and his attachment to Sarah 
had all the force and freshness of a first love. They 
are widowers; and their attachment to their wife’s sis- 
ters is, or ought to be, but a second love-—The Law of 
incest, under which Abraham lived, was probably tra- 
ditional, and therefore liable to indistinctness and un- 
certainty. The Law, under which they live, is written, 
and therefore distinct and certain.—The Jewish Com- 
mentators agree that the Traditional law, under which 
Abraham lived, forbad marriage with a sester, without 
specifying a half-sister ; and that the Section, forbid- 
ding marriage with a half-sister, was introduced into 
the Levitical Code, to counteract the influence of Abra- 
ham’s example; and the fact, that, in each of the four 
passages, forbidding marriage with a sister, a half-sis- 
15* 


” 


174 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


ter is expressly specified,—“ thy sister, the daughter of 
thy father, or the daughter of thy mother,”—gives strong 
colour to this opinion. 'The Written law, under which 
they live, on the contrary, does most clearly forbid the 
marriage which they have contracted, as well as, most 
expressly and explicitly, other marriages still more re- 
mote.—Abraham never had a Law of the land, which 
prohibited his marriage with Sarah. T'hey have al- 
ways had a Law of the land, which, until it was gar- 
bled a few years ago, to comport with the propensities of 
certain of the Scribes and Levites, expressly forbad their 
marriage with their present wives.—Let not, then, the 
young idolater of Mesopotamia, because, in the intense 
warmth of a youthful flame, he persuaded himself, that 
a sister did not mean a half-sister, be too severely 
handled by any modern Levite; who, under the impulse 
of a cooler passion, has wrapped himself in that flimsiest 
of all conclusions, ever woven in the loom of sophistry, 
that a wife is more nearly related to her husband, 
than a husband to his wife. If Abraham thus in 
fact persuaded himself; it is only one instance out of 
very many, in which men, by the aid of very slight ar- 
guments, have concluded that that, which they very 
much wanted to do, was not wrong. Painfully nu- 
merous have these instances been, in every age; espe- 
cially where Conscience has drawn one way, and the 
Love of women, the other. Does the memory of the 
objector here fasten on the cases of Lamech, and Jacob, 
and Judah, and Gideon, and Samson, and David, and 
Solomon, &c. &c. &c. as directly in point? Then I will 
make no appeal to his consctowsness.—Among the 
“three things,” which were “ too wonderful” for the Son 
of Jakeh, “yea four, which he knew not,” there is one. 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 175 


which, “even unto this day,” has received no satisfac- 
tory solution. 

What, then, if we could forget that he was at that 
time an idolater, would be the argument ?—“ Abraham 
was too good a man to do what was wrong: but he 
- married his half-sister: (a clear case of incest :) there- 
fore incestuous marriage is not wrong.”— We could wish 
that the major of the syllogism had been true: 
that he, with whom “God conversed face to face, as a 
man converseth with his friend,’ who, at the call of 
God, “ went out, not knowing whither he went,” who 
offered his “only son, even Isaac, as a burnt offering,” 
who had such influence on high, that not a flake could 
drop from the fiery cloud, on Sodom and Gomorrah, 
till his prayer was ended, and who heard from God’s 
own mouth the sentence, “ Well done!” before he was 
summoned to his trial:—we could wish, that even he 
had been too good a man, to do what far humbler vir- 
tue sees to be wrong. But what says the Record? 
Moses was too honest an historian, to gloss over the 
failings even of Abraham. A hero. and a saint, in the 
battle with Chedorlaomer and the three associate kings, 
he quailed in his courage and his faith, at the courts of 
Pharaoh and Abimelech; and left us evidence, alas! 
too convincing, that the conduct of no child of Adam is 
an unerring rule of rectitude, except that of the Man, 
Curist Jesus. 

‘It may be observed here, also, as at the close of the 
last objection, that an Israelite, under the Levitical 
Code, who wished to contract an incestuous marriage, 
expressly forbidden in that Code, might have urged this 
argument for breaking the law in his own justifica- 
tion, with exactly the same force, with which it is urged 
by the objector; and with exactly the same success. 


176 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


3. It is alleged that the advocates for an extended 
Law of Incest cannot agree among themselves as to its 
Extent; that the Papists forbid marriages with fourth 
cousins ; and that some Protestants have held mar- 
riage with a first cousin to be unlawful. Hence it is 
argued, that it is impossible to ascertain with certainty 
the degrees actually prohibited; and of course that we 
may lawfully differ with regard to it. 

We admit that the Popes did this. [Knowing that 
the royal families of Europe were all related, and that 
they would intermarry only with each other, they ex- 
tended the Law of Incest to the degrees specified, for two 
solid reasons: 'I’o secure a princely douceur for every 
license: and to compel crowned heads to acknowledge 
the supremacy of the Popes. While their hand was in, 
they also sold licenses for marriages really and grossly 
incestuous, and thus made it one great division of the 
most profitable branch of their business—that of selling 
indulgences to sin. We also admit, that some Protes- 
tants have held the marriage of first cousins to be un- 
lawful. Having made these admissions, we reply, 

1. The want of agreement among the advocates of a 
doctrine or duty can be no reason for giving it up. If 
it were, we must give up the whole Bible. 

2. The corruptions of Popery cannot nullify the 
word or law of God. If they could, what part of either 
would be left. 

3. The only practical question, in this and every 
case, is, What is the Law of God? The answer to 
that question settles our duty. 

4. The whole Scriptural Law of Incest is given in 
the preceding pages, and, from the very nature of the 
subject, admits of being settled with mathematical cer- 
tainty. It expressly mentions propinguity, as the rule 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 177 


of the law; and the application of it is strictly mathe- 
matical. 'Those who have read these pages will bear 
witness, that, while it expressly forbids marriages be- 
tween collaterals of the first and second degrees, both 
by consanguinity and affinity, it contains no allusion to 
marriages between collaterals of the third degree—i. e. 
between first cousins,—either by consanguinity or 
affinity. 

5. If this be a good reason for dispensing with a part 
of the Levitical Law of Incest, it is equally good for dis- 
pensing with the whole. : 

6. It charges the fault on the Law itself; and there- 
fore, if valid, is a good reason, why such a law should 
not have been given. 

4. It is said that no person can be so proper a Step- 
mother for the bereaved children, as the sister of their 
mother. 

To this I answer: 

1. If the marriage were not forbidden, this would be 
the case only, when the character of the aunt was equal 
or superior, but never when it was inferior, to that of 
any other lady whom the father could marry. 

2. This consideration, if it had any weight, would 
also authorize a man to marry his siséer, his aunt, or 
his niece, his brother’s wife, his wifes aunt, his wife’s 
niece, or his wife’s daughter by a previous marriage, 
if they were of the proper age. Incest out of the ques- 
tion, either of them would be a kind and suitable step- 
mother, on the principles of the objector. 

3. God knew the full force of this argument for the 
marriage in question, when he forbad it under a dread- 
ful penalty. 

4. This suitableness did not prevent him from pro- 
nouncing it “a sin,” “an iniquity,” “an abomination ;” 


178 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


nor from mentioning it as one among the sins, for 
which he exterminated the Canaanites, and as one 
among those, for which he threatened to drive Israel 
out of Canaan. 


Havine advanced thus far, we will review the 
ground we have already gained, in a brief recapitula- 
tion. We have seen, 

1. That Polygamy, was forbidden, as immoral in its 
tendency, under both the Patriarchal and the Levitical 
Dispensations; and that under both it involved the 
crime of Adultery. 

2. That Leviticus xviii. 18, is merely a prohibition of 
Polygamy under the Levitical Dispensation. 

3. That Incest was a crime before the Levitical Law 
was given. 

A. That the Law of incest forbids all marriages both 
of Lineals and of Collaterals of the first and second de- 
grees, by Affinity and by Consanguinity; and of no 
Collaterals of the third degree. 

5. That Incest is pronounced by God, whether com- 
mitted by Canaanites, who were Gentiles, or by Israel- 
ites, “a sin,” “an uncleanness,” “an. abomination,” 
“an iniquity,” “a wickedness,” “an unclean thing,” 
‘an abominable custom,” a sin provoking the divine 
“ abhorrence,” and a “land-defiling sin,” causing it “to 
spue out its inhabitants.” 

6. That it is classed with adultery, rape, sacrificing 
of children to Moloch, sodomy, bestiality, cursing of pa- 
rents, idolatry, murder and assassination; and that he, 
who commits it, is pronounced “ cursed.” 

7. That it is mentioned as one of nine crimes, which 
caused the extermination of the Canaanites; and one 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 179 


of nine, for which the Israelites were threatened with ex- 
termination. 

8. That the Levitical Law punished the Israelite 
who committed it with death, 

9. That either the whole of the Law of Incest is in 
force, or no part of it is-in force; and, of course, that, if 
it is lawful to contract any one of the prohibited mar- 
riages, it is equally lawful to marry an aunt, or a 
niece, a sister, a daughter, or a mother. 

10. That the Law of Incest was not a part of the 
Ceremonial Law, nor one of the Local statutes of the 
Levitical Code; that the fact of its being one of the Ge- 
neral statutes of that Code furnishes no evidence, that 
it is not still in force—they being just as much Moral 
statutes, as those of the Duologue or those of the Deca- 
logue—and that, if the Law of incest is itself binding 
its Penalty is not therefore binding. 

11. That the Law of Incest is absolutely binding on 
the Gentiles; since the Levitical Code, as to its General 
statutes, is binding on them; and the reason of the 
Law is just as applicable, and the Law itself just as ne- 
cessary, to them as to Israel; and is in its nature strictly 
a Morallaw; and was in force before the Levitical Law 
was published; and is directly recognized in the most 
explicit and solemn manner, as in full force in the New 
Testament, and under the Christian Dispensation ; and 
because, if the Law of Incest be not binding on them, 
neither is any part of the Old Testament. 

12. That the binding force of the law of incest is not 
impugned by the fact, that it is in one sense a Positive 
statute ; nor by any arguments derived from the Practice 
of incest among the Patriarchs, and Israelites ; nor by 
any disagreement, among Papists or Protestants, as to 
he Extent of the prohibitions; nor by any Fitness of 


180 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


a wife's sister or niece for the office of Step-mother to the 
bereaved children. 


THESE points being established, we call then distinctly 
on the Great Ecclesiastical Bodies of our country, by 
their solemn decisions, to condemn these incestuous 
marriages; on the Ministers of religion to bear their 
public and decided testimony against them, and to refuse 
in all cases to celebrate them ; on the Churches of all 
denominations to put away this iniquity from among 
them; and on the Legislatures of the several States to 
restore our American Statute-books to their pristine 
purity. 

Shall I be told that this wiil fasten a stigma on the 
parties, who have contracted these marriages and on 
their children?—This argument, if it were sound, 
would have prevented God from giving a Law of incest, 
and every country on earth from enacting one. It would 
have had equal weight also in preventing the introduc- 
tion of laws divine and human, against polygamy, for- 
nication and adultery. Even a Turk,—were “His 
Highness” in his zeal for reform, to enact Leviticus 
xviii. 22,—might as well complain that a stigma was 
cast upon himself and his young associate, in the prose- 
cution of a favourite indulgence. Indeed, it would 
always have been, and would now be, an equally valid 
argument against the enactment of every new criminal 
law. Let it be remembered that it is the Law of God, 
which is in the possession of all the people, that is 
chiefly to blame in this business; that the Law of God . 
has branded so deep a stigma on Incest, that no human 
laws can make it deeper , and that, had it not been for 
the Law of God, and the testimony of conscience that 
that Law was right, all the efforts of Man to fix such a 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 181 


stigma would have been vain and powerless. But why 
this Eeclesiastical and Legislative civility to this trans- 
gression? If Incest be what God declares it to be, “a 
sin,” “an iniquity,” “a wickedness,” “an abomination,” 
‘a land-defiling sin,” shall we not merely wink at it, but 
solemnly pronounce it innocent. Was God thus civil to 
the gentlemen and ladies of Canaan and of Israel, who 
had contracted incestuous marriages? And shall we, in 
our religious and civil parliaments, from an over-civility to 
Incest, publicly tell our Maker that he was mistaken ? 
“Who are we? When were we born? And what do 
we know ?” 

Shall I be told, further, that if the Laws were to for- 
bid the marriages now licensed, it would be impossi- 
ble to execute them? In obeying God, we are not left 
to the rule of Expediency. This argument, too, if 
sound, would have prevented God from giving a Law of 
incest and all other laws restraining impurity. How 
rank was the hold, which Incest and its kindred crimes 
had taken of Canaan, and which in the days of Ezekiel 
they took of Israel. But it is not true. The first 
inroads on our laws of incest were made at the instiga- 
tion, and by the secret management, of some of our 
“ prime nobles,” who had either seduced, or married, or 
pledzed themselves to marry a wife's sister ; and who 
wished by this finesse, to escape, at once, public odium 
and personal responsibility ; just as the Arch-Chancellor 
of Napoleon, following in their steps, when appointed 
’ by his master to draw up the “ Code Penal,” struck out 
the sin of Sodom from the list of crimes; being himself 
a notorious and infamous Sodomite. After this first 
inroad, some other of these disinterested men, wishing to 
marry his wife's niece, or brother’s wife, moved the 
wires afresh, and the puppets legalized the already 

16 


182 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


formed or proposed connéction. © At length a few of the 
reverend clergy, being “ men of like passions with other 
men,” took the double hint of inclination and example; 
and, with a spirit equally disinterested} justified their 
“civil fathers,” first by kindly writing’ in defence of the 
marriage, which they had doubly sanctioned, and ‘imme- 
diately afterwards by contracting it themselves. Many 
others in humbler life, compared with none, and yet but 
few’ on the whole, have formed similar’ connections. 
But the great majority of the people of any or of all of 
the States do not wish to contract the marriages in ques- 
tion, and feel no interest in continuing their legislative 
sanction. The common voice is not in their favour. 
Nothing has prevented the prosecution of cases still pro- 
hibited, but the consideration, that they had occurred 
through the miserable interference of the Legislature, 
and the ricketty state of the marriage-acts.. Were’ our 
laws restored'to their fair form and comely proportion, 
the practice would be right of course. No offence is so 
easily detected, as an incestuous marriage ; none con- 
fined within limits so absolutely definite. And it is’ a 
gross slander upon the substantial yeomanry of our 
country, to represent them as so little conscious of moral 
obligation, that, when under the solemnity of an oath, 
they will not, upon satisfactory evidence, convict trans- 
eression. 

Shall I be told, again, that Legislatures are not 
bound to enforce the Law of God, any further than 
the Good of the State requires ?—TIf this purely Infidel 
objection be admitted in the very terms of it, it is easy 
to show that Obedience to the Laws of God, which for- 
bid sexual impurity, promotes the best and highest Good 
of the State. Disobedience to those laws has been, 
throughout all time, the great, the prominent sin of Man, 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 183 


that, which more, than any other sin, has, corrupted and 
putrefied the human character. ‘Lewdness,” said a. 
Monarch,* who was neyer thought strait-laced, either in 
principle or practice, “is the ruin of Europe ;” and no one 
of the restraints, with which divine and human sanc- 
tions have environed it, has ever proved supereroga- 
tory. On the contrary, all united have not been suffi-’ 
cient to prevent it from becoming, in any one Christian 
country, rank and monstrous. The Law of incest, 
when re-enacted in all its fulness, has not proved an 
adequate safe-guard to the purity of families; but 
“the beginning ” of licentiousness, made in the partial 
repeals of that Law, has been “like the letting out of 
water.” Were a prophet of God to disclose the facts, 
he would show us, by a recital of instances tremendous 
at once for their number and their guilt, that Incestuous 
lewdness, between a husband and the female relatives 
of his wife, has been the fearful consequence of this 
daring inroad on the institutions of God; and that not 
a few of the marriages between men and their wife’s 
sisters have been the result of necessity rather than 
election. 

But I trust, [am not arguing with infidels. If the 
men who urge this objection believe the Bible, then they 
believe that Incest, in every degree of it, is “an iniqui- 
ty,” “a wickedness,” “an abomination,” “a land-defil- 
ing-sin,” a sin which excites “ the abhorrence,” and pro- 
vokes “theanger of God,” and which, as existing in one 
of its forms, an apostle styles a sin, “not so much as 
named among the Gentiles.” Itis in vain to say, that 
the guilt of an incestuous marriage is a point to be set- 
éled between the parties and their God. So is the guilt 


- 


¥* Louis XIV, wy J 


184 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


of adultery and of all the other crimes against good 
morals; but does that justify the repeal of all laws for- 
bidding them. Iam well aware that no Legislative 
sanctions will shield the partiesin the day of trial. But 
on the Legislators, who legalize Incest, will rest the 
guilt of “the Son of Nebat who sinned and made Israel 
to sin.” The Nation, also, which upholds rulers, who 
thus “make evil, good, and good, evil,” will be sure of a 
day of coming vengeance. On this point, God has 
not left us without a witness. The Canaanites, in the 
midst of palpable darkness, with only a taper to read 
their unwritten law, were punished, for the practice of 
Incest and other kindred crimes, with complete and 
judicial extermination. Of how much sorer punishment 
then shall we be thought worthy, who, under the blaze of 
noon-day, publicly trample under foot the Law of God 
written out in full on the pages of our Bibles, and do 
despite to his authority as the holy and righteous Go- 
vernor of the Universe! It is in vain to say that we 
still forbid the most heinous cases, and permit only those 
which are the least aggravated. Every one of those 
which we permit, as well as of those which we forbid, 
was forbidden to the Iraelites and to the Canaanites ; 
and, as we have seen, is absolutely forbidden to us; 
and for all of them, without distinction, the wrath of 
God without mixture was threatened to the one, and 
poured out to the uttermost upon the other.—-And why 
as legislators, and as a people, do we thus venture ?—~ 
For no earthly reason, but to yield to the wishes of here 
and there a man of influence, who has contracted, or is 
bent on contracting, an incestuous marriage. 

Shall I be told, also, that it is in vain for any one 
State to reform its Law of incest, unless the other 
States will reform theirs? This is the hackneyed 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 185 


plea, by which the seller of obscene books and pictures, 
the retailer of strong drink, and the keeper of the 
brothel, justify their conduct. “ Obscene books and 
pictures will be sold, strong drink will be retailed, 
and brothels will be supported, let me continue my 
business or not; and why should not I,” says each 
one of these miserable beings, “make a little money, 
as well as my neighbours?”—Is a crime any the less 
a crime because others commit it? Was it an excuse 
to the Israelites for the practice of Incest, that the neigh- 
bouring nations practised it? God himself answers 
this question: “For all these abominations have the 
men of the land done, which were before you; and the 
land is defiled. ‘That the land spue not you out also, as 
it spued out the nations that were before you. 'There- 
fore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not 
any one of these abominable customs, which were com- 
mitted before you, and that ye defile not yourselves 
therein: Iam the Lorp your God.”—-But the plea is 
not true. Let the due efforts be made in each State, by 
the men, who fear to sin against God; and the work 
will be done. As the people at large did not bring about 
these encroachments on the Law of incest, so they are 
not anxious to continue these incestuous marriages. 
They know that there is no such scarcity of females 
in this country, as to compel its inhabitants to the prac- 
tice of Incest. ‘They know that the Levitical Law of 
incest, in its full extent, was quietly submitted to by the 
nation of Israel, and by the nations of Europe, in- 
cluding their own fathers, for more than three thou- 
sand years; and they cannot divine why it has 
lately proved a yoke, which we Americans are un- 
able to bear. If, however, some of the States should 


refuse to reform. their statute books, and to forbid inces- 
16* 


186 THE LAW OF INCEST. 


tuous marriage ; the plain Janguage of God to the sur- 
rounding states is, “Come out from among them, and 
be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing; and I 
will be a Father to you; and ye shall be my sons and 
daughters, saith the Lorp Almighty.” 

Shall I be told, finally, that there are so many, 
who have contracted incestuous marriages, in our 
churches, and in our pulpits, that it is not safe to 
begin the work of reformation 2—What, in similar 
circumstances, said Moses to Israel; and what, long 
after, said Ezekiel to Judah ?—Is it then come to this, 
that they, who.are set as watchmen, to hear the word of 
God from his mouth, and to warn the people from him, 
shall be afraid to tell them, that God, their King and 
their Judge, declares Incest to be ‘‘an iniquity” “a 
wickedness,” “an abomination,” “a land-defiling sin ;” 
lest it should disturb the quiet in sin of here and there 
a member of their churches, and of here and there an 
associate in the ministry, and thus produce a momen- 
tary agitation! Did Paul do thus to the Church at 
Corinth ?— Did Ezra do thus, in a case of far less enor- 
mity to the Jews, his countrymen, on their return from 
Babylon ?—If the higher Ecclesiastical Courts would 
publicly and formally condemn these incestuous mar- 
riages, and those who celebrate them, in the very lan- 
guage of that God, whose commission they bear; if the 
Inferior Courts would resolve, that they would lay 
hands on none, and associate with none as ministers, 
who should henceforward, contract them ; if ministers 
would resolve that henceforward they would celebrate 
no such marriages; and if the Churches would also 
resolve, that they would exclude those who hencefor- 
ward contract them, from their communion, and dis- 
own them either as ministers of religion, or as members 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 187 


of the Church ;—even if our laws of incest were not at 
once revised, still the great object in view would be 
effectually secured. 'The Church of God would cleanse 
» its own hands of all participation in the guilt of Incest ; 
the people would see the sin in itself, by the strong un- 
intercepted light of God’s word, in its true deformity ; 
and the time is not distant, when the foul stain would be 
washed from the pages of every statute-book.* 

As to those who have contracted incestuous marriages, 
under the sanction of anti-scriptural laws, their case is 
unhappy. When God had commanded Joshua not 
to spare the Canaanites, the men of Gibeon, terrified by 
the fate of Jericho and Ai, came to the Israelitish Gene- 
ral, and, by a gross deception, inveigled him into a so- 
lemn covenant to spare them and their city. Joshua, 
three days after, found out the deception, and was 
wholly at a loss as to his own duty. Here was the ex- 
press command of God directing him to destroy, and 
there was the oath of God binding him to save. But 
God directed him to regard the oath, and fulfil the cove- 
nant. Plainly, therefore, the persons in question are safe 
in the practice of Incest, from the Law of the land; and, as 
the Ecclesiastical courts and the Churches have winked 
long and hard, at the contraction of these marriages, we 


* The higher Ecclesiastical Courts are bound by another considera- 
tion to declare to their respective denominations what the Law of God 
is on this subject, and to condemn most publicly those marriages which 
are incestuous. Many conscientious persons of both sexes, who are 
unable to examine the subject for themselves, are wholly at a loss, as 
to a most important point of duty, and uncertain whether they may 
lawfully contract certain legalized marriages or not. Some of the 
Clergy contract them ; and the Courts, if they have not long slept over 
the subject, have long shut their eyes upon it. To relieve the uncer- 
tainty of such persons, is one design of these Essays. But the great 
duty rests upon the Ecclesiastical Courts. 


188 THE LAW OF’ INCEST: 


do not see but> that, in good faith, they-are safe from 
their discipline also.—What an. exemption! What a 
privilege !———As to their personal duty, “ Non nostrum 
est tantas componere lites.”—-We do not venture to say 
that:they can discover it, in the following narrative ;- for 
the evil guarded against by the Law of incest is, in 
their case, already done: 

“Tt was the ninth month, and the twentieth day of 
the month, and all the people sat in the Street-of-the 
house-of-God, trembling because of this matter. And 
Ezra the priest said unto them, ‘ Ye have transgressed, - 
and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass 
of Israel. Now, therefore, make confession unto the 
Lorp God of your fathers, and do his pleasure, and 
separate yourselves from the strange wives’—Then 
all the Congregation answered:and said, with aloud 
voice, ‘As thou hast said, so must we do. Let. now 
our rulers of all the Congregation stand; and: let all 
them, that have taken strange wives in our cities, come 
at the appointed time; and: with them the: elders of 
every city, withthe judges thereof; until the fierce wrath 
of our God, for this matter, be turned from: us.’— 
And the Children of the Captivity did so. And Ezra, 
the priest, with certain of the chief of the fathers, sat 
down, in the first day of the tenth month, to examine 
the matter. And they made an end of all the men, 
that had taken strange wives, by the first day of the 
first month. And among the sons of the priests, 
there were found, that had taken strange wives, 
seventeen: and they gave their hands that they 
would put away their wives ; and, being guilty, they 
offered a ram of the flock for their trespass: and of 
the Levites, six: of the Singers also, one: of the Por- 
ters, three: moreover of Israel, eighty-five: all these 


THE LAW OF INCEST. 189 


(one hundred and twelve) had taken strange wives; and 
some of them had wives, by whom they had children.” 

Leaving these individuals, then, to seek for better 
counsel than we can give, we take our leave of the sub- 
ject. We have stated and explained the Law of incest, 
and proved its binding force. We have given the testi- 
mony of God concerning it ; and, in doing so, have not 
shunned to declare the whole counsel of God. We ap- 
peal then to those who make our Laws, to those who 
constitute our Ecclesiastical Courts, to those who minis- 
ter at the altar, and to the Churches of Christ. We 
call on them to purify the Church and the Country 
from this sin. It is the work to which God calls them, 
and to which in his providence they are appointed. If 
they will not do it; God will charge on them—on each 
according to his measure—the guilt, and the consequent 
pollutions, of the sin of Incest. 

Our work is done. 


eek ste set. ha 


wu Pat deoe OF (fe “ eee" ay 5 
Si ade W svat india okh) oe Siig dad ot orneth ibeua9 
hie iis wind Y aitiepndttiliges file. dermis duarh BRE a, 
pas oly suai ae | Fe ‘paibaig Jt hoieuneg eins 
i Fad (ua gt oe ene; ; tiquidava oO hk? VV elerte 
a's Nv heii | hoe iy atorbie ada orvahrod.ot Lravets taro 
he aoiy GP, ae End sdare ode atiely o>: mary fhag 
= -arattty Ni song) ssi } fa saybee iti aDOCE nia iffarde 
a Bee, tor dds vie ebeaip be See only ane to) 
isin Tae oth) oe dvi OY at ¥in ual reel hong PES 
ATES tas | Hoh daistse or shiove oil of fhe. aisth (aon 
YE* .Bbralogqar orm. vot a diverts ate aby choad ondute 


® s t = - 
th ate ioal? ad ogo Hiv hohe gid ay fore Nie eed 
i reith va Cie ity hare pitas S {) ) ue 4 mal wr oJ city “¥IGR 
.. + 
: ay nett i. } "obs arb 1 ‘anoldlog 
sao vi dws yO 
> a ite oe | ‘ 
- - ‘< 
& ; ye 
= os J 
” ; ete */ Wa) 
i fio 7.) LB Gy 
a + ° a. Oe 
£ * Das J he , owt ~ 
Z - ; . ' < + wee 
- : Wy ‘ a) 
ee 
i pie.) . 


iy 


: ee y Rie ‘) 
Ta 24 Sie eka Be 

ae ow a « \ y Sy ome , SPS ¢ 
pier Bigs: ee Tee a Cree ; 


A penta eae eile 


: so ae AE A 
, aly >t: repre ry rig ‘ie 
Titles Wie a Tbe 
; ye ; Aten 
te i ery ine ee; Seem 7 


bh ae owl i A ; 
he a +e y if eae AW 


fey Ne Ra 


j a.) : 5 a F : Hy ee ry ee MSD pee HF §. Lp LOE G, “ea: eat 
P : aay in : , APs eee a oly ae PR rose ea 


y ‘ ~ 
vg 4 wee oA pate) A cb et ven 25 il ee ete oe, tosploey Me ant ete op ae mn sore 
“ . sat. o Phew 3 ra bi i ’ 20 
PTR apd MOREA Ce RRS chineiy WF a eee sete, 
Ate en ‘te de tie dah ia Paar . Seated é 
4 " « 4 -, 
mi 34 ru4 A ee ~ beg SE 
Ea ae +a hae at GES. Fas 
be “ 
a a bebe os YEP 2 Sng tr 0, satan 
2 dy / 4 : mig® 
) heal ofl Pit ares Ct “hash apt? Aga ats BAP ds wie ak 
} ‘ ‘le os | oxime Pe au 
. : ‘apts SOUR nade mp y att hl Le ee Obey angles) e +i 
ae’ fiver. > er er $- 4 ihe : = “é Se 
é Gee eA f Re 4A ‘ . 
PE Yar ee By, Re Ap 
F S 7 3 rere if 2 
ay oo BA suite 
* Pid ee 
| See ee ere ti, 
; Ar Mare 
e; ine rr : LO, ane Le shfuasion 
¥ Pa ie 7 ay) i hr any. Bit F 
in| yi , : WS ART ; aes 
fe ae Ge Sot a Rey 
’ ‘. * 7 F 4 
{ ey as yh Whaat a veyed . i 
ae 
4 a Mt a Ad ea = pte, ta Oe: My oe Ws 
e ¢ AS oe eek jf Aes te 
} - ji = ; F pp 
: b ’ "a. fy ai hy ie oo ae ie 
4 \ ee ; J - 
» rll 7 "4 oa 
q o 
p : ' 


* 
*. 


a 


LEAVITT, LORD & CO. 
PUBLISHERS AND BOOKSELLERS, 
No. 180 BROADWAY. 


NEW-YORK. 
JONATHAN LEAVITT, 
CHARLES AUSTIN LORD, 
WIL! AM ROBINSON 


A constant supply of all Books needed in a Theological, Classy 
cal and Primary Education. Also, 


BIBLES of all the different kinds, from PLAIN and POLY- 
GLOTT 32mo., to BAGSTER’S elegant FOLIO, London Edition, 
All the BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES, in common use; A va- 
riety of HYMN BOOKS. 


SCHOOL BOOKS, in every variety and quantity, at the lowest 
Pearl-street prices. Country merchants and all wanting books, are 
requested to call before purchasing elsewhere. 


MISCELLANEOUS WORKS. An assortment of a Reli- 
gious and Moral Character; with BIOGRAPHIES, MEMOIRS, 
TRAVELS, &c. &c. 


NEW AMERICAN PUBLICATIONS on every subject of 
interest, regularly received. 


Among many Valuable Works Published by L. L. & Co, 
are the following : 


CALMET’S DICTIONARY OF THE BIB” E REVISED, with large 
nee By Prof. Rosrnson. With ma 3 and plates. Royal 8vo. 
sheep. 


Also, AN Asaipgment for young persons, wita maps. 12mo. sheep, 


“A sufficient testimony to the excel .ncy of this great Dictionary 
of the Buble is, that it has been trans atest into the Latia, Dutch, 
lialian, and Spanish languages. This book is one which, to those 
who are studying the Bible, it will be expensive not to purchase.”— 
Spirit of Pilgrims. 


COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF PSALMS. No.1, Ps. 1—8, 
[To be published in pericdical numbers.] By Gro. Busn, Professor of 
Hebrew and Oriental Literature, in the New-York City University. 
1834. No. 2 in Press. 5 p : 

As the several Psalms have no special connection with each other, 
and each of the numbers may be considered complete on the portion it 
embraces, a periodical issue was thought preferable to a eth of two or 
three years in publishing the entire work. The numbers will be publisa 

ed at intervals of about three months, at 50 cents a number, and 1 35 

extend to ten or twelve. 


SCOTT’S FAMILY BIBLE, 6 Vols. 8vo. sheep. 


Ge 


Works Published by Leavitt, Lord, & Co. 


RECOMMENDATIONS OF BARNES’ NOTES. 
From Abbott’s Religious Magazine. 


We ‘have previously, in a. brief notice, recommended to our readers 
Barnes’ Notes on the Gospels. _ But a more extended acquaintance with 
that work has very much increased our sense of its value. We never 
have opened any commentary on the Gospels, which has afforded us so 
much satisfaction. Without intending, in the least degree, to disparage 
the many valuable commentaries which now aid the Christian in the 
study of the Bible, we cannot refrain from expressing our gratitude to the 
Author, for the interesting and profitable instructions he has given us.— 
The volumes are characterized ed the following merits. 

1. The spirit which imbues them is highly devotional. It is a devotion 
founded on knowledge. It is a zeal guided by discretion. ; 

2. The notes are eminently intellectual. Apparent difficulties are fairiy 
met. They are either explained, or the want of a fully satisfactory expla- 
nation admitted. There is none of that slipping by a knot which is too 
common In many commentaries. " : , 

3. The notes are written in language definite, pointed and forcible. There 
ig:no interminable flow of lazy words. Every word is active and does its 
work well. There are no fanciful expositions. There are no tedious dis- 
Bey of learning. , i ; : 

here may be passages in which we should diffe~ from the writer in 
some of the minor shades of meaning. There may be sometimes an un- 
guarded expression which has escaped our notice. We have not scruti- 
nized the volumes with the eye of a critic. But we have used them 
in our private reading. We have used them in our family. And we have 
invariably read them with profit and delight. 

We have just opened the book to select some passage as an illustration 
of the spirit of the work. The Parable of the rich man and Lazarus now 
lies before us. The notes explanatory of the meaning of the parables, are 
fall and to the point. The following are the inferences, which Mr. Barnes 

educes. 


‘From tnis impressive and instructive parable, we may learn, 
“1, That the souls of men do not die with their bodies. 
“2. That the souls of men are conscious after death; that they do not 
sleep, as some have supposed, till the morning of the resurrection. 
"3. That the righteous are taken to a place of happiness immediately 
at death, and the wicked consigned to misery. 
“4. That wealth does not‘secure us from death. 
** How vain are riches to secure 
Their saughty owners: from the graves 
“The rich, tne beautiful the gay, as well as. the poor, go down to the 
grave. All their pomp auu apparel; ali their honors, their palaces and 
their gold cannot save them. Death can as easily find his way into the 
mansions of the rich as inio the cottages of the poor, and the rich shall 
turn to the same corruption, and soon, like the poor, be undistinguished 
from common dust, and be unknown. f 
“45. We should not envy the condition of the rich. 
** On slippery rocks I see them stand, 
And fiery bilk ws roll below. 
ii a should strive for a better inheritance, than can be possessed: in 
this life. 


‘** "Now I esteem their mirth and wine, 
Too dear. to purchase with my blood, 
Lord ’tis enough that thou art mine, 
My life, my portion, and my God.’” 


‘7. The sufferings of the wicked in hell will be indiseribably great. 
Think what is represented by torment, by burning flame, by insupportable 
thirst, by that state when a single drop of water would afford relief. Re- 
member that all this is but a representation of the pains of the damned, 
and that this will have no relief, day nor night, but will continue from 

2 


Works Pubiashed by Leavitt, Lord, & Co. 


RECOMMENDATIONS OF BARNES’ NOTES. 


year to year, and age to age, and without any end, and you have a faint 
view of the sufferings of those who are in hell. 

“8. There isa place of suffering beyond the grave, ahell. If there is 
not, then this parable has no meaning. It is impossible to make anything 
of it unless it is designed to teach that. 

. “9. There will never be any escape from those gloomy regions. There 
is a gulf fixed—fixed, not moveable. Nor can any of the damned beat a 
pathway across this gulf, to the world of holiness. 

10. We see the amazing folly of those, who suppose there may be an 
end to the sufferings of the wicked, and who on that supposition seem 
willing to go down to hell to suffer a long time, rather than go at once to 

eaven. If man were to suffer but a thousand years, or even one year, 
why should he be so foolish as to choose that suffering, rather than go at 
once to heaven, and be happy at once when he dies? 

““I1. God gives us warning sufficient to prepare fordeath. He has sent 
his word, his servants, his son; he warns us by his Spirit and his provi- 
dence, by the entreaties of our friends, and by the death of sinners. He 
offers us heaven, and he threatens hell. If all this will not move sinners, 
what would doit? There is nothing that would. 

“12. God will give us nothing farther to warn us. No dead man will 
tome to life, to tellus what he has seen. If he did, we would not believe 
him. Religion appeals to man, not by ghosts and frightful apparitions. 
It appeals to their reason, their conscience, their hopes, and their fears.— 
It sets life and death soberly before men, and if they will not choose the 
former they must die. If you will not hear the Son of God, and the truth 
of the Scriptures, there is nothing which you will or can hear; you will 
never be persuaded, and never will escape the place of torment.” 
~ Tf we have any influence with our readers. we would recommend them 
to buy these volumes. There is hardly any Christian in the /and, who will 
not find them an invaluable treasure. 


Extract of a Letter from a distinguished Divine of New England. 


It (Barnes’ Notes) supplies an important and much needed desideratum 
in the means of Sabbath School and Bible Class instruction. | 

Without descending to minute criticism, or attempting a display of 
learning. it embraces a wide range of general reading, and brings out the 
results of anextended and careful investigation of the most important 
sources of Biblical knowledge. | ha aie’ : 

The style of the work is as it should be, plain, simple, direct; often 
vigorous and striking; always serious and earnest. : 

Tt abounds in fine analyses of thought and trains of argument, admira- 
bly adapted to aid Sabbath School leachers in their responsible duties : 
often too, very useful to Ministers when called suddenly to prepare for 
religious meetings, and always helpful in conducting the exercises of a 
Bible Class. r ; 

Without vouching for the correctness of every explanation and sentiment 
contained in the Notes, its author appears to have succeeded very nappily 
in expressing the mind of the Holy Spirit as revealed in those parts of the 
New Testament which he has undertaken to explain. | 

The theology taught in these volumes, drawn as it Is from the pure 
fountain of truth, is eminently common sense and practical. 

It has little to do with theory cr speculation. y 

The author appears not to be unduly wedded to any particular school or 
system of theology, but co havea mind trained to habits of independent 
thinking, readily submissive to the teachings of inspiration, but in isposed 
to call any man master, or to set up anything in opposition to the plain 


testimony of the Bible. 


We would here say, once for all, we consider Barnes’ Notes the best 
commentary for families we have seen.—N. E. Spectator, 
3 


Works Published by Leavitt, Lord, & Co. 


RECOMMENDATIONS OF BARNES’ NOTES. 


Ir the degree of popular favor with which a work of biblical instrue- 
tion is received by an intelligent Christian community be a just criterion 
of its value, the volumes which the Rev. Mr. Barnes 1s giving the Church 
are entitled to a high place in the scale of merit.—_ N. Y. Evangelisé. 


From Review of the Gospels in Biblical Repertory. 


We have only to say further, by way of introduction, that we admire 
the practical wisdom evinced by Mr. Barnes in selecting means by which 
to act upon the public mind, as well as his self-denying diligence in labor- 
ing to supply the grand defect of our religious education. Masterly expo- 
sition, in a popular form, is the great desideratum of the Christian public. 

The Notes are always readable, and almost always to the point. No- 
thing appears to have been said for the sake of saying something. This is 
right. It is the only principle on which our books of popular instruction 
can be written with success. Its practical value is evinced by the exten- 
sive circulation of the work before us, as well as by the absence of that 
heaviness and langour, which inevitably follow from a verbose style, or the 
want of a definite object. Se! 

Mr. Barnes’ explanations are in general brief and clear, comprising 
the fruit of very diligent research. : 

We have been inuch pleased with his condensed synopsis of the usual 
arguments on some disputed points, as well as with his satisfactory solu- 
tion of objections. ee 

But Mr. Barnes’ has not been satisfied with merely explaining the 
language of the text. He has taken pains to add those illustrations which 
verbal exposition, in the strict sense cannot furnish. The book is rich in 
archeological information. All that could well be gathered from the coin- 
mon works on biblical antiquities, is wrought into the Notes upon those 
passages which need such elucidation. 

In general we admire the skill with which he sheds the light of arche- 
ology and history upon the text of scripture, and especially the power of 
compression which enables him to crowd a mass of knowledge into a 
narrow space without obscurity. 

While the explanation of the text is the primary object kept in view 
throughout these notes, religious edification is by no means slighted. 
a pee devotional and practical remarks bear a due proportion to 
the whole. 

From what we have said it follows of course, that the work before us 
has uncommon merit. Correct explanation, felicitous illustration, and 
impressive application, are the characteristic attributes of a successful 
commentary. Thou h nothing can be added in the way of commendation 
which is not iivolyed! in something said already, there are two detached 
points which deserve perhaps to be distinctly stated. We are glad to see 
that Mr. Barnes not only shuns the controversial mode of exposition. but 
often uses expressions on certain disputed subjects, which in their obvious 
sense, convey sound doctrine in its strictest form. What variety of 
meaning these expressions may admit of, or are likely to convey, we do 
not know; but we are sure that in their simple obvious meaning they are 
strongly Calvanistic in the good old sense. 

The other point to which we have alluded is Mr. Barnes’ frankness 
and decision in condemning fanatical extravagance and inculcating Christ- 
ian prudence. 

With respect to Mr. Barnes’ style we have little to say beyond a gene- 
ralcommendation. The pains which he has wisely faken to be brief, 
have compelled him to write well. 


4 


Works Published by Leavitt, Lord, G Co. 
, 
THE SOCIAL FIRE-SIDE LIBRARY. 
FIRE-SIDE SERIES. A series of 18mo volumes, (of a popular and 
practical character,) of original and select works prepared expressly for 
it, illustrating the religious and moral duties of life, family duties and 
responsibilities, especially those of parents to children, and children to 
parents, &c. The plan, in a word, includes all those subjects which 
may afford useful interesting family reading. Severa! volumes, embel- 
lished with steel engravings, are already publishcu, others are in press, 
from the pensof Rev. Messrs. H. Hooker, T. H. Gallaudet, (late Prin- 
cipal of the American Asylum for the Deaf and Dumb,) Jacob Abbott, 
(author of the Young Christian,) and others, equally distinguished for 
their success in writing for children. _ These volumes consist of 250 
pages, retail at 50 cents, and are sold singly or in sets, as preferred. 
Vol. I.—Fire-Sive Piety. 
Vol. II.—Tue Moruer’s Frienp. 
Vol. II.—Cuina ano THE Enauisu. 
Vol. IV.—Reat Diatocues on THE Evipences or CurisTIANITY. 


JUVENILE SERIES.—A new series of small volumes, designed for the 
moral and religious improvement of children, has just been commenced. 


Vol. I.—Way ror A CuiLp TO BE SAVED. 
Vol. I1.—Every Day Dury. 
CHILD’S BOOK on the Sabbath. By Rev. H. Hooxer. Giving in an 


intelligent but interesting style an account of the institution of the Sab- 
bath, its change, design, 1nieans of observance, &c. &e. 


BIBLE STORIES for children. By Rev. T. H. Gattacpet. 


CHILD AT HOME, or the principles cf Fihal Duty familiarly illus- 
trated, By J.S. C. Assorr. 


With man~ other valuable and interesting books suitable for childrer: 
and youth, and for Sabbath School Libraries., 


THE EVERY DAY CHRISTIAN. By Rev. T. H. Gatravuper. 

MOTHER AT HOME, or principles of Maternal Duty familiarly il- 
lustrated. By J. S.C. Assorr. 

FAMILY AT HOME, or familiar illustrations of the various Domestio 
Duties. By G. D. Assorrt. 

PIKE’S GUIDE TO YOUNG DISCIPLES. 


PIKE’S RELIGIOUS AND ETERNAL LIFE, or Irreligion and Per 
petual Ruin. 

DAILY DUTIES. By A Married Lady. 12mo. 

PAYSON’S FAMILY SERMONS. Sermons for Caristian Families, 
by Epwarp Payson, D. D. 18ma. 


EVENING EXERCISES for the Closet, for every day in the year. 
By Wm. Jay. Stereotype edition. The superior excellence of this 
work is universally admitted. Several thousand copies have already 


been circulated. 
PORTER’S RHETORICAL READER, 16th edition. 


PORTER’S ANALYSIS OF THE PRINCIPLES OF RHET RIC.AL 
DELIVERY. 


STONE’S CHILD’S READER, on anew and popular plan, 18n°0, 


Works Published by Leavitt, Lord, & Co. 


MEMOIRS OF HARLAN PAGE. 


‘BIOGRAPHIES OF DR. PAYSON, MRS. HUNTINGTON, BURDER, 
HALYBURTON, J.B. TAYLOR, &c. 


MEMOIR OF Mrs. MIRON WINSLOW, late Missionary to India. 
By her husban1, Rev. Miron Winstow. Ina neat 12mo. with a Por- 
trait. 


WILBERFORCE’S PRACTICAL VIEW OF CHRISTIANITY, with 
an Introductory Essay, by the Rev. Danie, Wuitson, D. D. 18mo. 
. new edition, with a steel portrait. 


DR. PAYSON’S SELECT THOUGHTS. 32mo. 


THE RELIGIOUS OFFERING. Here the religious portion of the 
reading community are presented with a book, that will carry to their 
children and friends, in as attractive a form as possible, those great 
truths that relate to man as a moral, responsible, and religious being. 


POLYMICRIAN TESTAMENT. 32mo. This Testament contains a 
very copious selection of really iets passages, being, with some ad- 
ditions, the same as are found in the English Polyglot. It has the 
varioug readings in a centre column, and short explanatory notes, that 
will be acceptable to a numerous class of readers—besides 5 maps illus- 
trative of the holy theatre of Christ’s and his apostles’ labors. This 
multum in parvo book is ornamented by a page exhibiting specimens 
of 48 different languages. 


BARNES’ “SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT OF EPISCOPACY” EX- 
AMINED. 1Smo. 


BUTLER’S ANALOGY OF RELIGION, with an Essay by Rev. A. 
Barnes. Stereotype edition. 12mo. ; 


ELEMENTS OF MENTAL AND MORAL SCIENCE, designed to 
exhibit the Original Susceptibilities of the Mind, and the Rules b 
which the Rectitude of any of its states of feeling should be judge 
By Georce Payne, D. D. Second American edition, in one volume, 
i2mo. 


ZINZENDORFF, A New Onicinat Porm, by Mrs. Sigourney, with 


minor Poems. In a neat 12mo. volume. . 


LECTURES ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION. By Rev. C. G. Frx- 
ney, of Chatham-street Chapel, New-York. 1 vol. 12mo. 


FOREIGN CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. 
By ‘“ Brutus.” 2d. edition. 


JUDGE JAY ON COLONIZATION AND ANTI-SLAVERY. 12ma, 
2d. edition. 


BIOGRAPHIA LITERARIA, or Sketches of my Literary Life and Opin- 
ions. By S. T. CoLterines. New edition.  8vo. 

NATURAL HISTORY OF ENTHUSIASM, 4th edition. 

SATURDAY EVENING. By the same author. 4th edition. 12mo, 

FANATICISM. By the same author. 

POLITICAL DESPOTISM. By thesame. Just Published. 


HEBREW GRAMMAR. By Geo. Busn, Professor of Oriental Lan 
~ guages in the New-York University. 


MOTHER’S PRIMER, to teach a child its letters, and how to read, By 
Rev. T. H. GaLtaupet. 


LEAVITT, LORD & CO’S LIST 


of some of the more important 


STANDARD WORKS, 


On various subjects, which may always be obtained at the lowest prices. 


1. COMMENTARIES 
On the whole Scriptures. 


SCOTT, in 6 volumes or 3. FAMILY COMMENTARY, 1 volume, 
HENRY, in 6 volumes or 3. COMPREHENSIVE do. 

CLARKE, in 6 volumes or3. MANT & D’OYLEY, 2 volumes. 
GILL, 9 volumes 4to. 


On: the New Testament. 


BARNES’ NOTES. ON THE GOSPELS, in 2 volumes. 

Do. do. ACTS, in 1 volume. 

Do. do. ROMANS, in 1 volume. 
BURKITT ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
DODDRIDGE’S PARAPHRASE, &c. in 1 volume. 
MACKNIGHT ON THE EPISTLES, in 1 volume. 
STUART ON THE HEBREWS, in | volume. 

Do. ON THE ROMANS, in 1 volume. 
BLOOMFIELD’S CRITICAL DIGEST, in 8 volumes. 


German Authors. 


CALVIN, HEGSTENBERG, NEANDER, 

DE’ WETTE, HUG, ROSENMUELLER, 
EICHORN, KUINOEL, TITTMANN, 
FLATT, KOPP, THOLUCK. 
GESENIUS, LUCKE. 


2. THEOLOGY AND DIVINITY. 
The Complete Works of 


BARROW, 7 vols. FOSTER. LIGHTFOOT, 13 vols. 
BAXTER, 23 vols. FULLER, 2 vols: MASON, 4 vols. 
BERKELEY, 3 vols. GURNALL, 4 vols. NEWTON, (Bp.) 1 vob 
BEVERIDGE, 10 vols. HENRY, 1 vol. NEWTON, (J.) 2 vols 
BICKERSTETH, 1 vol. HERVEY, 6 vols. OWEN, 21 vols. 
BUTLER, (Bp.) 1 vol. HOOKER. PALBY, 6 vols. 
BUNYAN, | vol. HORNE, (Bp.) 1 vol. SECKER, 6 vols. 
CAMPBELL, 3 vols, HORNE, (T. H.) 4 vols. SMITH, (J. P.) 4 vols. 
CALMET, 1 vol. HALL, (Bp.) 2 vols. SHERLOCK, 5 vols. 
DICK, 4 vols. HALL, (Robt.) 3 vols. SIMEON, 21 vols. 
DODDRIDGE, 1 vol. HORSELEY, 1 vol. TAYLOR, (Jer.) 5 vols 
DWIGHT, 4 vols. HOWE, (Jno.) Ivol. TOPLADY, 6 vols. 
EDWARDS, 10 vols: JAHN, 1 vol. WARBURTON. 
ERSKINE. JAY, (Wm.) 3 vols. WARDLAW. 

FABER. LARDNER, 10 vols. WATTS. 


FLAVEL, 6 vols. ~ LEIGHTON, 1 vol. 


Leavitt, Lord, & Cos s Catalogue. 


3. ETHICS, MORALS, ELOQUENCE, &c. 


ABERCROMBIE, COLERIDGE, LOCKE, 
ALISON, COMBE, PAINE, 
BACON, DEWAR, REID, 
BROWN, DEGERANDO, SPURZHEIM, 
BURKE, DYMOND, STEWART, 
EURTON, GOOD, WAYLAND 


4. HISTORY. 


UNITED STATES.—Bancroft’s, 5 vols.—Grahame's, 2 vols.— 
Holmes’s, 2 vols.—Pitkin, 2 vols. 8vo.—Ramsay, 3 vola.— 
Willard’s, 1 vol. 

ENGLAND.—Goldsmith—Hume, Smollett, ¢- Miller, 4 vols.— 
Hallam, 3 vols.—Lingard, 12 vols.—Mackintosh, 1 vol. 8vo. 

SCOTLAND.—Scott, 2 vols.—Robertson, 1 vol. ‘ 

EUROPE, (Mopern. )—Russell G- Jones, 3 vols.—Robertson’s Charits > 
V.—Heeren’s Polit. System, 2 vols.—Crowe’s France, 3 vals.— 
Sismondi’s Italy, 1 vol.—Grattan’s Netherlands, 1 vol.—Fletch- 
er’s Poland, 1 vol.—Mills’s Chivalry and Crusades, 4 vols.— 
Venetian History, 2 vols.—Florence, 2 vols. 

ANCIENT, (Universat.)—Rollin, 2 vols., 4 vols. or 8 vols.— 

Heeren, 1 vol. 
Greecr.— Gillies’, 1 vol.—F'rost, 1 vol.—Heeren, 1 vol.— 
Mitford, 8 vols. 


Romr.—F'erguson, 1 vol.—Hooke, 3 vols.—Livy, (by Ba- 
ker,) 2 vols.— Tacitus, 1 vol.—Gidbon’e Decline 
and Fall, 1 vol. or 4 vols. 


Arrica.—Heeren, 2 vols.—As1a.—Heeren, 3 vols. 
Eeypt.—Russell, 18mo.—PALEsTInNE.—Russell, 18mo. 
Tue Jews.— Millman, 3 vols. 


UNIVERSAL.—Frost, 1 vol.—Muller, 4 vols.—Robbins, 1 vol.— 
Tytler, 1 vol.— Whelpley, 1 vol. 
ECCLESIASTICAL.— Goodrich, (Elements,) 12mo. 


Marsh, do. 12mo. 

Milner, with continuation, 1 vol. 8vo. 
Mosheim, do. 3 vols. or 2 vols. 
Waddington, do. 1 vol. 


Burnet’s Reformation in England, 4 vols. 
Eusebius’s Ecc. Hist. First Six Centuries, 1 vol. 
Scott’s Lutheran Reformation, 2 vols. 18mo. 
Smedley’s Reformed Religion in France. 

Winslow's Sketch of Missions, 12mo. 

History of Popery, 12mo. Of the Inquisition, 12mo. 


DATE DUE 


Vv 
= hi 
a a ee 


$i WV 4 "3 


etéa Og iL, 


GAYLORD 


PRINTEDINU. SA 


ene’ 


ty i MIN 
| fe iin tl 


: i ‘ i 
u i Ui 


/ ; f 


) 
| 
i 
| 


——————— 
——=> 
——S—= 


| 
‘ 


SS ——————————— 
= 
i 


f 
I, bos 


—— 


= S—OOSSS=—__ <= a 


Ss 


